Figure shows the coordination of lithium and transition metals with fluorine, for two different cases: a "Li-F rich" case, Li 1.8 MO 2 F 0.8 , and a comparatively "Li-F poor" case, Li 1.5 MO 2 F 0.5 . The coordination numbers are shown as a function of the number of transition metals in the simulation. As expected, the coordination number of lithium to fluorine is higher than that of the fluorine to the transition metals in both cases. Ti(IV) and Cr(III) show the strongest preference for O 2-coordination within the transition metals. For titanium, this preference is likely due to its relatively high positive charge. Cr(III) prefers undistorted octahedral coordination environments due to its d 3 electron configuration, resulting in a strong preference for O-rich coordination environments . Ni(II) is the transition metal with the highest average fluorine coordination (likely due to its comparatively low charge) and also appears to be the most strongly influenced by an increase in the number of transition metals. However, it does not approach random coordination in both cases. The nickel-fluorine average coordination decreases with increased n M as in these simulations, for charge conservation, there is always an equal Ti(IV) content. Introducing Mn(III) and Fe(III) with a weaker preference for O 2-coordination than Ti(IV) and Cr(III) will allow for Ni(II) to incorporate in cation sites with comparatively high oxygen coordination. Crucially these plots highlight that while multi-component cation substitution may go some way to suppressing short range ordering preferences in these materials, it does not appear to be able to overcome the strong preferences for transitionmetal-oxygen bond formation observed in these materials.