This paper is meant to report on Cajetan’s confusion, claiming the value of the esse with regard to the original procedure of reading proposed in Capreolus’s division, closer to Aquinas’s, that is, the one of the formal being (forma essendi) as complementum substantiae (ordo essentialis in entitate) and the esse (actus essendi) as complementum suppositi (ordo subsistentiae in entitate). The esse regains the metaphysical status conferred by Aquinas –denser than the simple value of existence–, with the distinction of a line of substantial composition (rather than in the essential one, provided the allurement of an esse essentiae) and an entitative composition where the esse is dignified as actus essendi. Submitted to this formula, there are the being, the actus informandi simpliciter (level of hylomorphic substantial constitution) and the actus subsistendi (suppositive level, either as pure form or as hylomorphic ex his compound).