parametrizations. Conversely to what happened analyzing the previous models, in Fig. 9, we observe that the N2LOL interaction produces an improvement in the description of A$_{y}$ and iT 11 . The well known discrepancy in these observables is now reduced and, in particular for A$_{y}$ , the improvement is noticeable. In the case of the tensor analyzing powers, a slightly worse description of T 21 between the two maxima is now observed. In general all TNFs of the type analyzed here have this effect in T 21 indicating that a different mechanism, not present in the models, should be considered to improve the description of the minimum around 75 ◦ . Finally we would like to comment on the fact that the vector analyzing powers, A$_{y}$ and iT 11 , calculated using different TNF models fall inside a band with a different position for each model. In Fig. 10 the three bands, extracted from Figs. 7,8,9, are shown explicitly and compared to original AV18+URIX model (solid line). We can clearly observe the different position of the bands with the best description obtained with the new parametrizations of the AV18+N2LO model and the worst description with those one of the AV18+URIX model. Since all the models inside the bands describe reasonably well B ( $^{3}$H), $^{2}$a$_{nd}$ and B ( $^{4}$He), we can conclude that the difference is a direct consequence of their different short range structure. A natural question is whether, with opportune modifications of their radial dependence, i.e. modifying the functions y ( r ), T ( r ) and Z 0 ( r ), it will be possible to improve further the description of these observables at E$_{lab}$ = 3 MeV and, eventually, obtain a χ 2 per datum close to one. A preliminary study in this direction has shown that a further improvement in the A$_{y}$ and iT 11 maxima is associated to a worse description of the T 21 minimum. The particular structure of these observables is related to a bigger splitting in the $^{4}$P$_{J}$ phase-shifts than the normal splitting produced by the two-nucleon forces, as discussed in Ref. [26]. In particular the $^{4}$P 1 / 2 phase-shift has to be smaller and the mixing parameter ϵ 3 / 2 − has to be bigger. It is a general feature of the TNFs studied here that they tend to increase both, $^{4}$P 1 / 2 and ϵ 3 / 2 − . To be more precise, in Table V we show the $^{4}$P$_{J}$ phase-shifts and ϵ 3 / 2 − for the AV18 and AV18+URIX potential models, and for one selected set of the parameters of Tables II, III, IV corresponding to the new parametrizations of the AV18+TM’, AV18+URIX and AV18+N2LOL models (indicated in the table with an asterisk). In particular, parametrizations of the second row of Table II, fourth row of Table III and third row of Table IV have been used, respectively. In the last row of the table, the results from phase-shift analysis (PSA) of Ref. [26] are given. From the table we observe that the $^{4}$P 1 / 2 phase-shift increases when the TNF models are added to the AV18 potential. 15