In defending the failure of their model parameters to accurately predict the kinetic profile from other experiments such as that shown in Figure , the authors of Ref. 41b maintain that "the data reproduction of multiple experiments with the same rate parameters appeared impossible because of the experimental irreproducibilities", thus suggesting that the computer model offers a more accurate representation of the experimental data than do the data themselves. It is indeed true that symmetry breaking experiments of the Soai reaction in the absence of a chiral source can result in different profiles and different ee values for seemingly identical experiments, and such fluctuations are difficult to model and predict. What is unclear from the reasoning of these authors, however, is the question of how they knew to choose the profile of Figure for modeling rather than that of 7a, which would have returned an entirely different set of kinetic parameters and possibly entirely different conclusions: which profile is the one that "correctly" models these fluctuations, and which one is due to what they term "experimental irreproducibilities"? Nevertheless, the authors stated, incorrectly, that "simple autocatalysis involving monomers as the catalytic species is consistent with all reported experimental effects of the Soai reaction." In fact, the only "experimental effect" in agreement with this monomer model is the single kinetic profile that was enlisted to construct the model. If chemical meaning is to be associated with the parameters of a multi-parameter, elementary step reaction model, the model should draw upon multiple, independent data sets, not simply a single experiment. The model must be predictive of the behavior under reaction conditions separate from those used to construct the model. Under these criteria, the monomer-active model of Ref.