The debate on Berkshire Hathaway's size relies on a residual alpha proof of 0.1% as a central element, which invites us to ask: would we revisit this idea if we had not already invested so much attention in the thesis of size restriction? It would be more prudent to see this figure as a conditional rather than causal proof, as mechanisms like disciplined share buybacks can mask or offset such marginal alpha. We should rather evaluate the implications with a fresh perspective, recognizing that structural advantages, such as the float of insurance, have a more decisive influence. For example, if Berkshire decided to allocate a larger portion of its vast liquidity reserves to strategic buybacks, this minimal alpha could be quickly nullified, rendering this proof sunk.