RT ref This means for k S k ref S the surface reaction is rate limiting while for k S k ref S the surface reaction is quasi-equilibrated. Figure reveals an overall linearly increasing loss, , with increasing k S (especially for n = 3 and n = 4) which is explained by the chosen error measure. Assuming constant relative errors in rate prediction, the chosen L 1 -norm computes errors proportional to the predicted rates. Since the rate of the surface reaction is purposefully increased, it is expected to see a linear rise in losses with increasing reaction rate constant. Apart from this trend, a distinct bifurcation of losses, , for n = 3 and n = 4 with a minimum at k S = 1 × 10 7 m 3 mol -1 s -1 for n = 4 is apparent. This minimum unsurprisingly corresponds to the identifiable ground truth mechanism at the point of reference k ref S where all reactions are equally fast by construction. The overall loss, , for n = 3 and n = 4 to the left of the bifurcation in fig. (slow surface reactions, region I) behaves very similarly, while the integer loss, I , simultaneously is maximal for n = 4 and n = 5. Hence, the low loss, , suggest the existence of three or four reactions, while the high integer loss, I , actively contradicts four or more reactions. Consequently, n = 3 reactions suffice to describe kinetic behavior while retaining kinetic and stoichiometric information in region I. This observation might seem contradictory to the expected behavior assuming four reactions present in the ground truth mechanism. The unidentified ("missing") reaction is tied to the limited observability of slow processes in the chosen maximally transient regime. Under these conditions, the formation of adsorbed species by surface reaction is far outpaced by the formation via sorption processes. Thus, identifying the three main sorption reactions R1, R2 and R3 is sufficient for describing overall species formation rates. A similar argument can be made in case of the surface reaction being fast in comparison to the sorption processes (high values of k S , region III). In this regime, loss, , and integer loss, I , eventually (k S > 1 × 10 13 m 3 mol -1 s -1 ) predict the existence of only one reaction step since both are lowest for n = 1. Again, species formation rates are dominated by a subset of fast reactions, the surface reaction in this case, and only one elementary reaction step is enough to describe observed data by our criteria. Only the intermediate regime (region II at k S ≈ 1 × 10 4 -1 × 10 10 m 3 mol -1 s -1 ) is better explained by the set of all four reactions as shown by the simultaneously low losses, and I . A visual representation of what it means for the reaction system to be dominated by a subset of reactions can be taken from fig. : For both region I and III the logarithmic difference in reaction rate far exceeds 4, meaning the slowest reactions is more than 10 000 times slower than the fastest one -a rather difficult case for observing kinetic behavior by any means. The region of kinetic discovery (II) aligns well with the minimum indicating that maximal kinetic discovery seems feasible in the range where the logarithmic rate difference of the reactions is < 4; or in other words, if most of the reactions happen on similar time scales. It should be mentioned again that the presented method does in fact represent the dominating kinetic behavior of the reaction system whether it is dominated by a subset of fast reactions or not. In certain cases this just leads to a loss in kinetic information -quite similar to the description of kinetics using macrokinetic expressions like the LHHW.