of the main manuscript, but only considering the points at the highest five pressures and without taking absolute values. We do not take absolute values here so we can know if the maximum loading is overestimated or underestimated. As this behavior is unlikely to change in the high-pressure regime, error cancellation does not occur. In Fig. , we can see that even at high pressure, the cDFT loading predictions match very closely the GCMC calculations, with all the deviations within 10%. For N 2 , the cDFT predictions are good too, with 91% of the maximum loading MRD with 15%. For CO 2 , it can be observed that cDFT tends to underestimate the loading at high pressure by a median value of -11%, which is still reasonable. In Fig. , similar plots to Fig. of the main manuscript are shown, but here for the maximum loading MRD, showing the trends for the high-pressure regime. From Fig. , it also seems that including Coulombic interactions for N 2 would be beneficial for the few materials where the maximum loading MRD is underestimated. However, the maximal pore size does not seem to play an important role here. For CO 2 , no clear trend of the maximum loading MRD with the strongest MOF-CO 2 interactions calculated with cDFT can be observed in Fig. . A possible explanation is that over the whole MOF, the Coulombic interactions are, on average, correctly calculated and at high pressures, the adsorbates are loaded over the whole MOF. In contrast, in the Henry regime, only a few grid points would exhibit a significant loading and the deviation of cDFT would depend on how accurately the Coulombic interactions were calculated at these few points. However, a decreasing trend of the maximum loading MRD with the maximum pore size is observed, similar to the one observed in Fig. of the main manuscript.