In an ideal scenario, the reaction would contain no insoluble precipitate, would have gone to full conversion, and the presence of a mass ion peak corresponding to a single cage species would be apparent, based on the assumption that no catenated species were formed, indicating a clean hit, as found for B15 (where cage names are given as the precursor combination from which they are formed). From a materials discovery perspective, this outcome is the most desirable, as it requires the least amount of post-processing to isolate the desired cage. Arguably, the next most desirable outcome is one with full conversion to a single cage species, but that fails the turbidity check, as after a simple filtration to remove the insoluble precipitate, the desired cage could be isolated, such as for I17. While some precursor combinations, such as G30, also pass all of the automated analysis steps in relation to no observed precipitate, full conversion, and identification of a mass ion corresponding to a cage species, in this scenario, a mixture of cages was identified in the HRMS (both [2+3] and [4+6] cage assemblies). While the formation of mixtures of cages has been previously reported in the literature, this is a less desirable outcome, as it is often difficult to isolate both species individually, especially when taking into account the dynamic nature of the imine bonds, typically requiring selective crystallisation or purification by preparative HPLC. Partial conversion to single cage species can also occur, such as in the case of D3, where the NMR check fails due to the presence of residual aldehyde, or even more complex mixtures identified by HRMS, such as I23 (containing [4+6], [6+9] and [8+12] species) or N29 (containing [2+3], [4+6] and [6+9] species). Reaction outcomes that contain mixtures can be desirable when accessing cages with larger, less common topologies, but there is a trade-off due to the requirement for additional purification steps to isolate the desired cage(s). Finally, precursor combinations may also result in outcomes where no cage formation is observed, such as in the case of A8, along with no suggestion of reactivity due to the failure of both the turbidity and NMR checks. Applying these 'pass'/'fail' categorisations across all 366 precursor combinations (Figure ), some general trends can be observed about the potential of each precursor to form a cage. For example, no combinations with triamines A and F, and diamines 19, 22, and 33, formed any identifiable cage species. In contrast, we can identify highly promising precursors whose combinations resulted in a large proportion of successful cage formation, as identified by HRMS, including dialdehydes 2, 4 and 16 (66%, but passing all categorisations), diamines 25 (86%) and 26 (86%), triamine C (88%), triamine D (75%), triamine E (81%), trialdehyde I (72%), trialdehyde N (78%) and trialdehyde R (67%). Precursor combinations that led to cage mixtures being identified are shown by the splitting of the inner ring by the number of observed topologies in the mass spectra (HRMS topology check, Figure ). The majority of the mixtures observed in the HT screen were of [2+3] (assumed to be Tri 2 Di 3 ) and [4+6] (assumed to be Tri 4 Di 6 ) species (78%), the two most commonly reported topologies in the literature. ). Both J31 and M24 combinations resulted in the clean formation of mixtures with full conversion and no insoluble precipitate observed, whereas N29 formed a mixture with no insoluble precipitate, but not full conversion, indicating the DCC reactions could potentially further equilibrate to one of the more thermodynamically favourable topologies.