 in §\[sect:discussion:exceed\] that this likely does not affect the final orbital period distributions in the simulations.

-   In all other cases, we mark the outcome as ‘no migration’.

For each outcome, we show the corresponding fraction, based on the $N_\mathrm{MC}=10^3$ simulations, for the 2+2 and 3+1 configurations, and various sets of simulations: with the first (‘Orb. Distr. (1)’) and second (‘Orb. Distr. (2)’) assumptions about the orbital distributions (see §\[sect:IC:orbits\]), and with (‘F’) and without (‘NF’) the inclusion of flybys. Also, we show fractions after 10 Gyr of evolution (if applicable; otherwise, the end time is the stopping condition time), or after a random time between 0 and 10 Gyr ($t_x$), appropriate for continuous star formation.

The most likely outcome in all cases is ‘no migration’. Note that the eccentricities may still have been excited (see §\[sect:pop\_syn:orb:e\] below). In a few per cent for the 2+2 systems, and in up to $\sim 14\%$ for the 3+1 systems, tidal migration occurs in orbit 1 or 2. In the 2+2 configuration, double migration, of which we showed an example in §\[sect:examples:1\], occurs in a few tenths of per cents, i.e., is relatively rare. RLOF is triggered in up to $\sim 11\%$ for the 2+2 systems, and $\sim 15\%$ for the 3+1 systems. In the 2+2 systems, dynamical instability rarely occurs, which can be understood by noting that dynamical instability can only be triggered in our simulations by flybys, or, more rarely, if the outer orbit eccentricity, $e_3$, is enhanced, which can only occur due to high-order terms (higher than quadrupole-order), and therefore only in compact systems. For the 3+1 systems, dynamical instability is relatively common for the orbit 1-2 pair (up to $\sim 14\%$). This can be attributed to enhanced eccentricity of orbit 2 if it is inclined relative to orbit 3. As noted above, the unbinding of the system due to flybys rarely occurs. The run time is exceeded mostly for 3+1 systems, and this is further addressed in §\[sect:discussion
in § \[sect: discussion: exceed\ ] that this likely does not affect the final orbital period distribution in the model. 

 -    In all other cases, we mark the consequence as ‘ no migration ’. 

 For each outcome, we show the represent fraction, base on the $ N_\mathrm{MC}=10 ^ 3 $ simulations, for the 2 + 2 and 3 + 1 configurations, and various sets of pretense: with the first (‘ Orb. Distr. (1) ’) and second (‘ Orb. Distr. (2) ’) assumptions about the orbital distribution (determine § \[sect: IC: orbits\ ]), and with (‘ F ’) and without (‘ NF ’) the inclusion of flybys. Also, we show fraction after 10 Gyr of evolution (if applicable; otherwise, the end prison term is the stopping condition time), or after a random time between 0 and 10 Gyr ($ t_x$), appropriate for continuous ace formation. 

 The most likely outcome in all cases is ‘ no migration ’. notice that the eccentricities may still have been excited (see § \[sect: pop\_syn: orb: e\ ] below). In a few per penny for the 2 + 2 organization, and in up to $ \sim 14\%$ for the 3 + 1 systems, tidal migration occurs in orbit 1 or 2. In the 2 + 2 configuration, double migration, of which we showed an example in § \[sect: examples:1\ ], occurs in a few tenths of per cent, i.e., is relatively rare. RLOF is triggered in up to $ \sim 11\%$ for the 2 + 2 systems, and $ \sim 15\%$ for the 3 + 1 system. In the 2 + 2 system, dynamical instability rarely occurs, which can be understand by note that dynamical instability can merely be triggered in our simulations by flybys, or, more rarely, if the outer orbit eccentricity, $ e_3 $, is enhanced, which can only happen due to high - order terms (higher than quadrupole - order), and therefore only in compendious system. For the 3 + 1 systems, dynamical instability is relatively coarse for the orbit 1 - 2 pair (up to $ \sim 14\%$). This can be attributed to enhance eccentricity of orbit 2 if it is inclined relative to orbit 3. As note above, the unbinding of the system due to flybys rarely occur. The run time is exceeded largely for 3 + 1 systems, and this is farther addressed in § \[sect: discussion
 in §\[sect:discussion:exceed\] thxt this likely bies nov affecf the fival orbital period distributmons in tye simulations.

-   In alu other cwses, we nark rhe outcomx as ‘no migratjln’.

Fox xach outcome, we show the worresponding xrxccion, based on the $N_\mathrm{MC}=10^3$ simulatijns, for tje 2+2 and 3+1 confidurauiogs, ahd various sets of simulations: witg the fprst (‘Orb. Distr. (1)’) amd second (‘Orb. Distr. (2)’) assumotiojs about the orbitwl distribujjonf (see §\[sect:IC:ofbits\]), and with (‘F’) and wjthout (‘NF’) the inclusion of flybhs. Alxo, we show feachhons after 10 Gyr jf evolution (if applhcable; ptherwise, the cnd tmme us the stopping condivion time), or after a random thmz between 0 and 10 Gyr ($t_z$), qpprokriata fof covtihupua star focmation.

The jost likely outcome in all casts yw ‘no migratioh’. Note trat the eccentricities may still have bten escited (see §\[sect:pop\_syn:orv:e\] below). In a few per cent for the 2+2 systems, and in up to $\sim 14\%$ for the 3+1 systems, didal oigxqtion icfurs in orbit 1 or 2. In the 2+2 configuration, doubjs kinration, of which we showed sn ecwmple in §\[sect:gxamples:1\], odcurs in a few tenhhs of ker cebts, i.e., is relstively rare. RLOF is triggeeed in up to $\wim 11\%$ for the 2+2 systzms, and $\sim 15\%$ for the 3+1 systems. In the 2+2 systemr, dyhamical inshability dxrely occurs, whizh ban te understood by noting thwt dynamiral iustabiligy csn onlr be triggfred lt our simulations hy flibys, os, more rarfly, if the outer orbit eccentrirmty, $e_3$, is enhamcad, fhich cau only occur due to high-order terks (highzr thav quadrupome-order), and therefjre only in cmlpact systemv. For thq 3+1 ststens, dynaokcal instabiliyy is relcuively comnon for the orbit 1-2 pakd (up to $\sim 14\%$). Thnr can be attribuyed to ejhenced accentricity of urbky 2 if it is incllnea rekative to orbit 3. As totes above, the unbindonn of the wystem dte to flybys tarely occurs. The gun tmme is excerdeq mostly for 3+1 systems, and this is furthfr wddressed in §\[secb:dissussion
in §\[sect:discussion:exceed\] that this likely does not final period distributions the simulations. - mark outcome as ‘no For each outcome, show the corresponding fraction, based on $N_\mathrm{MC}=10^3$ simulations, for the 2+2 and 3+1 configurations, and various sets of simulations: the first (‘Orb. Distr. (1)’) and second (‘Orb. Distr. (2)’) assumptions about the distributions §\[sect:IC:orbits\]), with and without (‘NF’) the inclusion of flybys. Also, we show fractions after 10 Gyr of evolution applicable; otherwise, the end time is the stopping time), or after a time between 0 and 10 ($t_x$), for continuous formation. most outcome in all is ‘no migration’. Note that the eccentricities may still have been excited (see §\[sect:pop\_syn:orb:e\] below). In a per cent 2+2 systems, in to 14\%$ for the tidal migration occurs in orbit 1 the 2+2 configuration, double migration, of which we an example §\[sect:examples:1\], occurs in a few tenths per cents, i.e., is relatively rare. RLOF is in up to $\sim 11\%$ for the 2+2 systems, and $\sim 15\%$ for the 3+1 the 2+2 systems, dynamical rarely occurs, which be by that instability can be triggered in our simulations by flybys, or, more rarely, if outer orbit eccentricity, $e_3$, is enhanced, which can only occur high-order (higher than quadrupole-order), therefore only in compact For 3+1 systems, dynamical instability common the (up $\sim This can be attributed enhanced eccentricity of orbit 2 it is inclined relative above, the unbinding of the system due to rarely occurs. The run time is exceeded for 3+1 systems, and this is further addressed in §\[sect:discussion
 in §\[sect:discussion:exceed\] thaT this likelY does Not AffEcT the FinaL orbital period DIstrIbutions in the simulatioNs.

-   In aLl OTher CAsEs, we mArk the oUTcOME as ‘No MiGraTiON’.

FOr eacH ouTcome, we Show the corResPoNding fractioN, BaSed on the $N_\mAthRm{MC}=10^3$ simulatiOns, For the 2+2 AnD 3+1 coNFigurAtiOns, anD varioUS sets oF simulatiOnS: With thE First (‘OrB. dIsTr. (1)’) anD second (‘Orb. Distr. (2)’) asSUmPTions about the oRbital DiSTrIBUtiOns (See §\[sect:IC:oRbIts\]), anD With (‘F’) anD WiTHOUt (‘Nf’) The inclusion oF flybys. Also, WE shOw fracTiOns AFter 10 GyR of evOlUTioN (if applicabLe; otHerwise, thE end tiME is the sTOpping cOnditiOn tIme), Or afTEr A rAndOm TIme BEtWeeN 0 And 10 gyr ($t_x$), appRoPrIate fOr coNTINUous StaR forMatioN.

The most likelY ouTcomE In aLl casEs is ‘nO migRaTion’. NOte thaT the eCcEntricities may sTill Have been eXciTeD (seE §\[sEct:poP\_Syn:orb:E\] beLow). in a few pEr cent fOR thE 2+2 sYSTEmS, and in up to $\sim 14\%$ for thE 3+1 sYSTeMs, tidal mIgratiON oCcURs in orbiT 1 oR 2. In The 2+2 cONFigurAtioN, DoUble migrAtion, oF WhIcH we showEd An examPlE in §\[SecT:examPLes:1\], oCcurs iN a few tenThs of PEr cents, i.e., is relATively rare. RLOf Is TRIgGEred In uP to $\sim 11\%$ for thE 2+2 sysTEms, aNd $\siM 15\%$ FoR thE 3+1 SysteMs. In tHe 2+2 SYsTEms, dynamical instabiLiTy rareLy occUrs, which can be Understood BY NOting thaT dynAMiCAl instability cAn onlY be triggerED in our siMulatIons by flYbys, or, morE RArely, if tHe oUteR orBit ECCeNtricity, $e_3$, is enHANced, WhIch can oNly Occur duE to HigH-orDer TeRms (higher Than quadRuPoLe-OrDer), And thERefore onLy In cOmPacT systEMs. For tHe 3+1 sysTems, DyNaMIcaL instabILiTY Is reLaTiVely ComMoN for tHe orBIt 1-2 pAir (up to $\Sim 14\%$). This caN be ATtriBuTeD to enhaNced eccentricItY of orbit 2 if It Is iNclineD RElative tO orbit 3. As noted above, the unBInding oF thE systEm duE to flybys RarEly occUrs. tHe run tIme is eXceedEd MosTLY for 3+1 sYSTeMs, aNd This is furtHER adDressEd In §\[seCt:discuSsion
 in §\[sect:discussion:exc eed\] that  this  li kel ydoes  not  affect the fi n al o rbital period distribu tions  i n  the si mulat ions.
-  I n a ll  o the rc as es, w e m ark the  outcome a s ‘ no  migration’. 
F or each ou tco me, we showthe  corre sp ond i ng fr act ion,basedo n the$N_\mathr m{ M C}=10^ 3 $ simul a t io ns,for the 2+2 and 3 + 1c onfigurations,  and v ar i ou s set s o f simulati on s: wi t h the f i rs t ( ‘Or b . Distr. (1)’ ) and secon d  (‘ Orb. D is tr. (2)’)assum pt i ons  about theorbi tal distr ibutio n s (see§ \[sect: IC:orb its \]) , an d  w it h ( ‘F ’ ) a n dwit h out  (‘NF’)th einclu sion o f flyb ys.  Als o, we  show fractio nsafte r  10  Gyrof ev olut io n (if  appli cable ;otherwise, theendtime is t hest opp in g con d itiontim e),  or aft er a ra n dom  t i m e  b etween 0 and 10 Gy r( $ t_ x$), app ropria t efo r  continu ou s s tarf o rmati on.Th e most l ikelyo ut co me in a ll  cases  i s ‘ nomigra t ion’ . Note  that th e ecc e ntricities may still have be e ne x ci t ed ( see  §\[sect:po p\_s y n:or b:e\ ]  b elo w ). In  a fe wp er cent for the 2+2 sy st ems, a nd in  up to $\sim14\%$ fort h e  3+1 sys tems ,  t i dal migrationoccur s in orbit 1 or 2.In th e 2+2 co nfigurati o n , double  mi gra tio n,o f  w hich we showe d an e xa mple in  §\ [sect:e xam ple s:1 \],  o ccurs ina few te nt hs  o fper  cent s , i.e.,is  re la tiv ely r a re. RL OF is  tri gg er e d i n up to $\ s i m 11 \% $forthe  2 +2 sy stem s , a nd $\si m 15\%$ f ort he 3 +1  s ystems.  In the 2+2 s ys tems, dyna mi cal  insta b i lity rar ely occurs, which can b e  unders too d bynoti ng that d yna micalins t abilit y canonlybe  tr i g gered i nour  s imulations b y f lybys ,or,more ra rely, if the outer orb it eccentrici ty,  $e_ 3 $ ,ise nh a nce d, whi c h  can only occur  due to hi gh - or der terms( hig he r thanquadrup ole-o r der), a nd theref ore onlyin  com p a ctsystems. F or the 3 +1 system s , dyn a mi cal i nst abilit yisrelat ivelyc omm on fo r theor bit 1- 2 pai r(up to $ \sim 14\%$). This can b e attr ibute d t o enhance d e c cen tricity o f or bit 2 if i t i s i nclin edr elati ve t o  o rbi t  3. A s no t ed above, th e u n b in ding of the s y ste m due  to flybys  rar ely occurs. The r u n time is exce eded m ost lyf or 3 +1  systems, andthi si s  further  a ddressed in  §\[sect :d i scuss ion
 in_§\[sect:discussion:exceed\] that_this likely does not_affect the_final_orbital period_distributions_in the simulations.

-_  In_all other cases, we_mark the outcome_as_‘no migration’.

For each outcome, we show the corresponding fraction, based on the $N_\mathrm{MC}=10^3$ simulations,_for_the 2+2_and_3+1_configurations, and various sets of_simulations: with the first (‘Orb._Distr. (1)’)_and second (‘Orb. Distr. (2)’) assumptions about the_orbital_distributions (see §\[sect:IC:orbits\]),_and with (‘F’) and without (‘NF’) the inclusion of_flybys. Also, we show fractions after_10 Gyr of_evolution_(if_applicable; otherwise, the end_time is the stopping condition time),_or after a random time between_0 and 10 Gyr ($t_x$), appropriate for_continuous star formation.

The most likely outcome_in all cases is ‘no_migration’. Note_that the eccentricities may still_have been excited_(see §\[sect:pop\_syn:orb:e\]_below). In a_few per cent for the 2+2_systems, and in_up to $\sim 14\%$ for the_3+1_systems, tidal migration_occurs_in_orbit 1_or 2. In_the_2+2 configuration,_double_migration, of which we showed an_example_in §\[sect:examples:1\], occurs in a few tenths_of per cents, i.e.,_is_relatively rare. RLOF is_triggered in up to $\sim_11\%$ for the 2+2 systems, and_$\sim 15\%$_for the_3+1 systems. In the 2+2 systems, dynamical instability rarely occurs, which_can be understood by noting that_dynamical instability can only_be triggered_in_our simulations by_flybys,_or, more_rarely, if the outer orbit eccentricity, $e_3$,_is enhanced,_which can only occur due to_high-order terms (higher than_quadrupole-order),_and therefore only in compact systems._For the 3+1 systems, dynamical instability_is relatively common for the_orbit_1-2_pair (up to $\sim 14\%$)._This can be attributed to enhanced_eccentricity of orbit_2 if it is inclined relative to_orbit_3. As noted above, the unbinding_of_the system due to flybys rarely_occurs._The_run time is exceeded mostly_for 3+1 systems, and this is_further addressed in §\[sect:discussion