The simulations therefore do not support the explanation of the residual chemical shift anisotropy by a framework-induced force on the adsorbates in the flexible samples. Since the simulation of micrometer sized crystals is well beyond the computationally accessible simulation size regimes, we are bound to the periodic boundary approximation. It is therefore not possible to provide computational proof of the first explanation (fast interparticle exchange). We can only argue against the second explanation via an ordering force applied by the framework. The observed line width of 0.1 (equals 33.5 ppm), however, perfectly agrees with the measured line widths of Sin et al. We therefore propose multiple hypotheses: First, the difference in line width could be due to differences in the inter-particle exchange, as already suggested by Sin et al. This should be experimentally observable by varying pressure and crystallite sizes (inside the rigid size regime). Secondly, the difference in line width could also be due to different defect concentrations. EPR studies of DUT-8 have previously shown, that the rigid and flexible crystals also exhibit different defect concentrations. It is imaginable that the higher mobility of guests at defect sites due to reduced confinement is the cause of the decreased line width.