As a second consistency check, we took all the CSD entries linked to a given NIST-ISODB adsorbent and checked whether the SGH of all structures was identical. Manual inspection revealed that in a minority of cases the same MOF name was indeed used to identify different structures in independent reports: this is usually the case for generic names chosen for enumeration purposes within the publication (e.g., MOF-1, Cd-MOF-1, PCP-1/2/3). More elaborate names can clash as well, however: for example the name "ZJU-21" was used to identify both a Cu-based MOF in 2014 and a Zn-based MOF in 2016. Both reports are from authors affiliated with Zhejiang University (acronym "ZJU") but do not share any co-author. However, in most of the cases, different SGHs point to slight differences in the reporting the crystal structure of the "same material": crystal structures with/without disorder in the framework, disorder in the solvent which therefore was not recognised as a known solvent molecule and not removed by the "computational activation", or the presence/absence of hydrogen atoms in the reported CIF.