The article contains an unresolved inconsistency in the reported composition of complex 1. The explicit formula [Ni18(O2)4(OH)3.62(N3)22.02(NO3)1.18(mpm)1.18(MeCN)12], together with the stated 0.5MeCN·1.42H2O lattice content, does not reproduce the empirical formula C34.90H55N82.56Ni18O19.40 or molecular mass of 2998.43 g/mol reported in Table 1. The elemental-analysis calculation also appears to use the explicit formula rather than the composition reported in Table 1. We ask the authors to clarify these differences by providing the formula derived directly from the final CIF, a complete occupancy table, and the molecular mass used to normalize the magnetic data.
In addition, the high-temperature Raman–Orbach analysis reports C = 8.50(6) without units and does not state the fixed Raman exponent n. The overlapping high-temperature analyses yield barriers of 261(9) K and 381.3 K, but the underlying relaxation-time data, fit residuals, parameter correlations, and complete fitting settings are not provided. We ask the authors to explain the origin of this difference and provide the complete CC-FIT files and raw ac-susceptibility data. For the low-temperature analysis, the original time-resolved micro-SQUID data and decay-fitting records are also needed because some reported relaxation times substantially exceed the displayed measurement window. These records are necessary to clarify the reported structural composition and independently assess the magnetic-relaxation analyses.