In order to give an overview of the submitted values, we provide in Fig. the errors for each entry. For ease of visualisation, a kernel density estimator has been used, showing in bright yellow value ranges with a large number of submissions. The RMSD of the null hypothesis (±62.3 cm -1 ) is delimited by the dotted white lines. A few observations can be readily made. Most of the submitted values do outperform the null hypothesis. Although this is a low bar, it is not necessarily a given. If the quantity of interest had a low spread (small range of test values), the null hypothesis would be hard to compete with, as has been observed in other blind challenges (see for example Ref. ). Another observation to make is that there is no apparent systematic error (too small or too large shifts) with a fairly balanced distribution around 0. The density distribution readily highlights DMI, FAH and TFE as the systems with the best quality estimates, despite the fact that a few outliers (with errors beyond 62 cm -1 ) are observed. Rewardingly, these three systems span relatively strong, intermediate and very weak hydrogen bonding.