TABLE IV: The phenomenological upper bounds on ( δ q $_{ij}$)$_{MM}$ and on 〈 δ q ij 〉 , where q = u, d and M = L, R . The constraints are given for m$_{˜}$ q = 1 TeV and x ≡ m 2 ˜ $_{g}$/m 2 ˜ q = 1. We assume that the phases could suppress the imaginary parts by a factor ∼ 0 . 3. The bound on ( δ d $_{23}$)$_{RR}$ is about 3 times weaker than that on ( δ d $_{23}$)$_{LL}$ (given in table). The constraints on ( δ d 12 , $_{13}$)$_{MM}$ , ( δ u $_{12}$)$_{MM}$ and ( δ d $_{23}$)$_{MM}$ are based on, respectively, Refs. [44], [45] and [46]. for MN = LR is 10 times weaker. Very strong constraints apply for the phase of ( δ q $_{11}$)$_{LR}$ from EDMs. For x = 4 and a phase smaller than 0.1, the EDM constraints on ( δ u,d,ℓ 11 )$_{LR}$ are weakened by a factor ∼ 6. While, in general, the low energy flavor measurements constrain only the combinations of the suppression factors from degeneracy and from alignment, such as Eq. (5.6), an interesting exception occurs when combining the measurements of K $^{0}$– K 0 and D $^{0}$– D 0 mixing to test the first two generation squark doublets. Here, for masses below the TeV scale, some level of degeneracy is unavoidable [16]: m$_{˜}$ Q 2 − m$_{˜}$ Q 1 m$_{˜}$ Q 2 + m$_{˜}$ Q 1 ≤    $^{0}$$^{.}$$^{034}$ maximal phases 0 . 27 vanishing phases (5.9) 20 q ij ( δ q $_{ij}$)$_{MM}$ 〈 δ q ij 〉 d 12 0 . 03 0 . 002 d 13 0 . 2 0 . 07 d 23 0 . 6 0 . 2 u 12 0 . 1 0 . 008 q ij ( δ q $_{ij}$)$_{LR}$ d 12 2 × 10 − 4 d 13 0 . 08 d 23 0 . 01 d 11 4 . 7 × 10 − 6 u 11 9 . 3 × 10 − 6 u 12 0 . 02 TABLE V: The phenomenological upper bounds on chirality-mixing ( δ q $_{ij}$)$_{LR}$ , where q = u, d . The constraints are given for m$_{˜}$ q = 1 TeV and x ≡ m 2 ˜ $_{g}$/m 2 ˜ q = 1. The constraints on δ d 12 , $_{13}$, δ u $_{12}$, δ d 23 and δ q ii are based on, respectively, Refs. [44], [45], [46] and [49] (with the relation between the neutron and quark EDMs as in [50]).