The input parameters to Pinnacle AP are rather intuitive. They are for the most part clinical dose‐volume goals, with a few “tricks of the trade” applied occasionally (see AP technique development strategy section in Methods). However, what we found in this work is that the AP algorithm seems to have a natural tendency to favor OAR sparing over target coverage and closely related target dose homogeneity. The higher composite PQM scores for the human‐driven plans are a reflection of the institutional priorities for the H&N plans built into the scoring algorithm, as we put a premium on target dose homogeneity. Other institutions or physicians may be willing to accept larger hot spots in exchange for better OAR sparing. If one is satisfied with meeting the basic RTOG 1016 hot and cold spot criteria, the AP OAR sparing results are actually preferable. What AP is apparently lacking, at least at our level of experience, is an easy tool to move the balance between dose homogeneity and OAR sparing. While problematic with our approach to the conventional H&N planning, the relative ease of achieving a lower dose to the OARs at the expense of higher hot spots could be beneficial, for example, for radiosurgery‐type treatments, where the target dose inhomogeneity is mandated rather than discouraged. (26)