as 1,4-bis(1-azoniabicyclo[2.2.2]octane)butyl, or monocationic OSDAs such as 1,3-bis(1adamantyl)imidazolium. Figure shows the proposed OSDAs for a CHA/AFX intergrowth based on the biselectivity design principles. As the gme cage in the AFX framework is not occupied by an OSDA, but may be stabilized by an inorganic structure-directing agent, the binding energy per SiO 2 alone, as is traditionally normalized, does not determine the likelihood of crystallizing this framework. 10 Quantifying phase competition effects of both inorganic and organic structure-directing agents at the same could provide additional insights on these phase boundaries, but simulations with these effects are overly expensive. Instead, the proposed OSDAs can also be compared with respect to their binding energy normalized per OSDA (Table in the Supporting Information), which has been proven useful to describe structure-direction in cage-based zeolites. 10 All computer-designed OSDAs in Fig. exhibit intermediate binding energies both for CHA and AFX. In addition, the templates are longer than TMAda, as required to favor the formation of the AFX framework in addition to the cha cage. Interestingly, most of the proposed OSDAs may crystallize the aft cage by promoting intermolecular π -π stacking, which enables two molecules to fit in a single aft cage (Fig. in the Supporting Information). On the other hand, flexible OSDAs may favor the crystallization of the cha cage by adopting a folded conformation, or the aft cage by adopting the longer conformation (Fig. ).