From B) two main aspects can be noticed: i) the differences between the electrode mesostructures are less pronounced respect the electrodes obtained after the drying (Figure ), but some differences are still observable; ii) the compression reduces the volume fraction of the pore phase all along the electrode mesostructure, but in an asymmetric way, i.e. higher particles compaction (and then less pores) is observed in the top side of the electrode respect to its bottom. Point ii) is understandable considering that the compression is performed applying a plane at the top side of the electrode, which is moved down to mimic the rolls along calendering. Therefore, the first particles that will feel the compression and that will be subsequently compacted are the ones in the electrodes' top layers. However, it should be mentioned that an aspect missing in the computational workflow used here is the role of roll's temperature, which is known to induce higher deformability of the binder phase and that could play a role in its reorganization along the electrode. 53 Concerning point i), for better evaluating the role of compression in leveling (but not completely removing) the heterogeneities of the dried electrodes, a direct comparison between dried and calendered electrodes is illustrated in Figure . Particularly, this figure reports the relative phases difference (RPD) for both compressed and dried (not compressed) electrodes along their thickness.