There were 11 non-ranked submissions for the GDCC dataset in addition to the 4 ranked predictions (Table ). Three of the four participants with ranked submissions included at least two non-ranked submissions which were different in only a single factor, allowing easy sensitivity analysis. For example, all three alchemical AMOEBA-based methods had RMSEs below 2 kcal/mol, including the ranked AMOEBA/DDM/BAR submission and the non-ranked AMOEBA/DDM/BAR_2 and AMOEBA/DDM/BAR_3 submissions. These methods differed by key AMOEBA torsional parameters describing the flexibility of the middle and upper rim of the cavity of OA and exo-OA. These differences appear to have substantially affected performance (Table ). The non-ranked AMOEBA/DDM/BAR_2 RMSE was the best of all methods and all predicted binding free energies were within 2 kcal/mol of the experimental values, including those for exoOA-g4, which was poorly predicted by other AMOEBA methods. The host parameters used in AMOEBA/DDM/BAR_2 were similar to those used in previous SAMPL challenges, while the other predictions used modified parameters. Overall, these AMOEBA submissions suggest guest binding to GDCCs is particularly sensitive to the host's diphenyl ether torsions, and especially so for guest g4 binding to exo-OA and guests g7 and g8 binding to OA.