As apparent from Table , the different DFT levels yield quite a range of "gap" values, resulting in the concomitant varying degree of agreement with the measured electron density profiles from the experiment seen in Figure . Intriguingly though, the obtained trend closely follows the expectations derived from the performance of the different levels of theory for bulk solid Cu and for Gr on Cu(111). The known underbinding of the pure PBE functional and complete absence of dispersive interactions at this level of theory yields a grossly overestimated "gap" value of almost 3 Å. The known overbinding of rSCAN reduces this error significantly, but the "gap" still comes out too large. This illustrates that the employed short-range functional can effectively compensate missing dispersive contributions to some extent. Correspondingly, the combination of short-range functional and dispersion correction needs to be well balanced. At solid Cu(111), the PBE+TS combination is known to overbind between Cu and C , and we obtain exactly the same for Gr at liquid Cu. The "gap" becomes too small. It is, therefore, the reduced many-body dispersive interactions at the PBE+MBD level that achieve the right balanceexactly as expected from insight gained through adsorption calculations of (hydro)carbons at solid Cu . This suggests that much of the knowledge gathered in calculations on bulk solids and solid surfaces can be transferred to liquid metal catalysis. Figure compiles more data for bulk Cu and clean Cu(111) that supports this interpretation. For the latter, we retrained the varying MTPs exclusively on the subset of pure Cu training structures, i.e., we disregarded all Gr-Cu structures to eliminate any residual influence of the latter on the learned Cu-Cu potential, cf. SI for details. Figure juxtaposes analog computed observables of the solid and liquid, and each time compares them to the experiment: the T=0K Cu fcc lattice constant vs. the liquid Cu density at T=1356K (exp. data from ), the T=0K Cu(111) surface energy vs. the T=1370K liquid Cu tension (exp. data from ), as well as the T=0K Gr-Cu(111) "gap" vs. the T=1370K Gr-Cu(l) "gap" (exp. data from and this work). In all three cases, we obtain exactly the same trends over the four levels of theory between solid and liquid state properties. Intriguingly, this even extends to anomalies previously noted for the solid state : For the bulk structural properties, Cu lattice constant and liquid density, pure rSCAN overbinds, and pure PBE underbinds. Since we do not let the +TS correction act on Cu-Cu interactions, this level of dispersion correction does not change anything here, while the MBD correction to PBE leads to an intermediate result. In contrast, for the energetic Cu surface properties, surface energy and surface tension, the MBD correction even overshoots rSCAN. While the MTP ML-surrogate models allow for quantitatively assessing the performance of different approximate exchange and correlation treatments for the calculation of liquid metal catalysts, it thus seems that knowledge of the performance of the respective solid metal catalyst provides already good guidance on their suitability. In this respect, this increases the confidence in the obtained PBE+MBD "gap" at liquid Cu, as there is ample experience from calculations of hydrocarbons at solid Cu that demonstrates the accuracy of this specific level of theory .