(2). A cursory inspection of the maps, however, suggests that the diversity within fiber (2) is larger, and more clear-cut, than in fiber (1). In the case of fiber (2), clusters are clearly distinct, and one can easily recognize multiple modes in the distribution, separated by lower-population transition regions, even in the 2D projection. On the other hand, the clusters in fiber (1) are quite similar and, although PAMM is capable of separating them based on the 8 PCA features, there are no clear separate modes visible in the two principal components visualized in Figure . One of the main objectives of this analysis is to compare structural motifs between different fibers. However, at this stage the analyses of Figure are not comparable between the different fibers. Namely, we cannot determine whether different clusters in fiber (1) (Figure , bottom) identify relevant differences within the assembly when compared to the differences observed in fiber (2), and whether there is a relationship between the motifs observed in the two fibers. Indeed, it could be that the structural diversity observed in (1) turns out to be simply noise, or fluctuations around the same class of patterns, when compared to (2). Being able to perform a systematic comparison and classification of different assemblies according to a common metric would be a first important step toward setting order in such complex dynamic systems.