Out of 36 experiments, 29 (80.5 %) are successful for both the unmasked and masked substrates, respectively. The failures mostly stem from poor contact (Figure , S6, S7 and S8), so it is crucial to find the optimum between the leakage of electrolyte and contact loss, by varying the dispensing and aspiration procedure of the extra portion of electrolyte before or after the contact with the substrate. The implementation of the algorithms that could decide the quality of the electrolyte contact with the cell based on OCP (Figure ) or EIS (Figure ) measurements and pump an additional amount of electrolyte could also be useful to detect and overcome this issue, and also to improve the output of the research. All specific discharge capacities have a 95% confidence interval of less than 5.5% of the mean (Table ), and for the second cycle, the margin of error is only 3.3% and 1.4 % for the unmasked and masked substrates, respectively. The uncertainties for the coulombic efficiencies are less than 1.3%, and for OCP measurements are less than 60 mV before the CP procedure and less than 20 mV for the measurements after the CP procedure. Since the presence of lithium-ions is expected for both the electrolyte and WE after the cycling, more reliable measurements of the electrochemical potential are expected. The margin of error of resistive elements for a substrate without a mask is less than 1.9% for the high-frequency resistance and 10.4% for the low-frequency resistance, which is probably related to the different signal contributions of the leaky and non-leaky areas. The resistances are within 9-75 percentage points of the real population value 95% of the time for the masked substrate.