Only two groups in total submitted binding enthalpy predictions, and both were for CB8. One of the approaches had excellent All quantities are reported as point estimate ± statistical error from the ITC data fitting procedure. The upper bound (1%) was used for errors reported to be < 1%. For the CB8 dataset, concentration error had not been factored in to the original error estimates, so we included a 3% relative uncertainty in the titrant concentration and we assumed the stoichiometry coefficient to be fitted to the ITC data . For the TEMOA/TEETOA sets, provided uncertainties already include concentration error. Δ was obtained from via the standard thermodynamic equation. The average Δ and Δ values were then used to calculate an average -Δ , and the corresponding standard deviations calculated using the standard equation for the propagation of uncertainties for subtraction. The deviations in log and Δ were obtained by using the standard equation for the propagation of uncertainties for logarithms. Binding measurements not detected or not measured are labeled with ND. predictive accuracy and correlation with experimental binding enthalpies (see Figure ). However, both methods performed particularly poorly at predicting binding free energies.