Informal benchmarking is a popular approach for calibrating sensitivity bounds for hidden confounding by treating observed covariates as if they were unobserved. While leave-one-out (LOO) benchmarking removes a single covariate, leave-multiple-out (LMO) benchmarking removes sets of covariates to approximate multidimensional confounding. In this study, we examine whether LMO benchmarking recovers the confounding strength as the number of features dropped increases. Using a synthetic dataset with bounded covariates and known confounding structure, we compare empirical bounds with an Oracle-like benchmark and the true theoretical value. The theoretical bound increases monotonically as more covariates are omitted, but the empirical LMO bound does not follow this pattern - it plateaus and then declines. The experiments show that this behavior is not explained by estimation error alone. Rather, it is a consequence of informal benchmarking being restricted by the given sample: large bounds are obtained from individuals with certain covariate values. This issue becomes more important as larger subsets are omitted, because the strongest theoretical benchmarks depend on increasingly specific patterns in the omitted covariates. As a result, LMO benchmarking may be more reliable for small omitted subsets, but should be interpreted with increasing caution for larger ones. We conclude that LMO informal benchmarking results should be read as sample-realized benchmarks rather than as the maximum confounding strength possible over the full covariate space. ... Read more