Table 1:

Case 1: GroEL. We ranked the maps based on various analyses and impressions^†. Where the maps were similar enough as judged by the assessor, they received the same rank.

Rank	JBH	RM	GP	SJ	Optimal
1	132,143, 165	104,120, 132,143, 165,169	132	104,120, 132,143, 153,165	132
2			169		143
3			143		165
4	169		120		169
5	104,120		165		120
6			168		104
7	158,168	153,158, 168	158	158	158
8			153	168	168
9	153		104	169	153

^†The bases for the different rankings used by the assessors: JBH: FSCref (Heymann, 2018b)

RM: FSCi (Marabini et al., 2018)

GP: Side chain Z-score (Pintilie and Chiu, 2018)

JHM(1): Combined score (Stagg and Mendez, 2018)

JHM(2): Internal RMSD (Stagg and Mendez, 2018)

SJ: CC-based distances between maps approximated with Gaussians (Jonic, 2018)

JZ: Visual inspection (Zhao and coworkers, Appendix)

Optimal: An optimal ranking calculated using RankAggreg (Pihur et al., 2009)