In Figure we compare the O(H 2 O) density profiles computed with the RISM models to AIMD data from various studies. The first striking discrepancy is the lack of double peak structure predicted by RISM vs. explicit simulations. For both RISM models, the general picture is a representation of disorganized water layers, with no clear separation between the first and second water layers. This hints a representation of the water structure as a continuum of configurations between the two extreme cases, corresponding to a liquid-like water at the interface. This lack of a well-defined bilayer structure can be explained by considering the absence of specific adsorption in RISM versus explicit simulations where water molecules can weakly adsorb, explaining the low first peak of the water structure. Their NNP was trained on smaller unit cells using PBE+D3 functional. Despite the use of similar functionals and dispersion corrections in both AIMD studies, the agreement between results is poor, suggesting that unit cell size and sampling have a significant impact. In our case, RISM is giving a thermally integrated (fully sampled) picture of the interface, which might smooth out the double peak structure. However, given the overwhelming evidence for the double peak in AIMD studies, a more plausible explanation for the lack of this feature in our RISM simulations is the absence of bonding interactions.