\section{Introduction}

With their experimental study of temperature and composition dependences
of transport properties of the disordered crystalline solid
SrNbO$_{3 - x}$N$_x$ \cite{Oka.etal.2021}, Daichi Oka and co-workers
aimed to contribute to a better understanding of electron localization.
Interpreting their measured data according to the currently prevailing
theories, they came across a gold nugget, but ignored it. That is, they
obtained some data which clearly contradict these theories. Although
those data are graphically presented in Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}, the
shown serious inconsistency is not mentioned in its text with any word.
-- This is all the more astonishing since the authors cite a review and
a comment, their Refs.\ 30 and 32 (here Refs.\
\onlinecite{Moebius.2019,Moebius.1989}), to which discrepancies of this type
are central. -- Those data are very interesting because they challenge
the widely presumed continuity of the metal-insulator transition (MIT)
in disordered solids, and thus the applicability of the highly cited
scaling theory of localization, Ref.\ \onlinecite{Abrahams.etal.1979}. In
detail:

In identifying the MIT, Daichi Oka and co-workers rely on the
theoretical ideas of Anderson localization
\cite{Anderson.1958,Abrahams.etal.1979} and of the interference of
electron-electron interaction and elastic impurity scattering of
electrons \cite{Altshuler.Aronov.1979}. In particular, they do so when
analyzing the temperature dependence of the conductivity, $\sigma(T)$,
of the sample with $x = 0.96$, referred to as sample 0.96 in the
following. According to the $T \rightarrow 0$ extrapolation of a
$\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$ fit \cite{Altshuler.Aronov.1979}, this
sample is classified as metallic in Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}; thus the
authors conclude the MIT to happen within the $x$ interval (0.96,1.02).
That data evaluation, however, is invalid for several reasons as the
present reconsideration from three different perspectives shows.

\section{The logarithmic derivative of $\sigma(T)$}

Consider the logarithmic derivative
$w(T) = \mbox{d} \ln \sigma / \mbox{d} \ln T$. If measured data really
obey $\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, p}$ with positive $a$, $b$, and $p$, then
the slope of $w(T)$ is positive -- as claimed in the text of Ref.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} to be the case for sample 0.96 at low $T$ -- and
$w(T) \rightarrow 0$ as $T \rightarrow 0$. The validity of this
statement on $w(T)$ should be verifiable by looking at Fig.\ 1d of Ref.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}. Unfortunately, however, evaluating the low-$T$
part of the $w(T)$ data for sample 0.96 therein is complicated by the
wide width of the $w$ range presented. Nevertheless, a thorough
inspection of this diagram, enlarged by means of the PDF viewer, yields
information on sample 0.96 that differs qualitatively from the
expectation regarding the ansatz $\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, p}$:
(i) With decreasing $T$, between about 8~K and the lowest $T$ value
considered, roughly 2~K, $w(T)$ no longer decreases as for
$25\ {\rm K} > T \gtrsim 11\ {\rm K}$, but even increases slightly; this
contradicts the above mentioned claim of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}.
(ii) In the whole $T$ range shown, $w(T) > 0$.
Taking these two points together, one naively expects that $w(T)$ tends
to some finite positive value $w_0$ as $T \rightarrow 0$, so that
$\sigma(T)$ vanishes as $T^{\, w_0}$ in this limit -- or that $w(T)$
diverges, so that $\sigma(T)$ vanishes in some exponential manner --.
Therefore, the electric transport in sample 0.96 is most likely
activated instead of metallic.

To shed light on the contradiction between this conclusion and the
interpretation in Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}, we digitized the
information on sample 0.96 given in Figs.\ 1b, 1c, and 1d of Ref.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} by means of WinDIG 2.5. Furthermore, for
comparison, data for the sample with $x = 1.02$, presented in Figs.\ 1c,
1d and in Supplementary Fig.\ 5 of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}, were read
out. The latter sample is referred to as sample 1.02 from now on.

\begin{figure*} [t]
\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth]{fig_1_moebius}
\caption{Temperature dependence of the logarithmic derivative
$w(T) = \mbox{d} \ln \sigma / \mbox{d} \ln T$ of the conductivity
$\sigma(T)$ for the sample with $x = 0.96$, marked by black
{\large $+$}. These data points were obtained from Fig.\ 1d of Ref.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}. In the left panel, they are compared to the
logarithmic derivative of the fit function shown in Fig.\ 1c of
Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}, given as red line here, and, additionally,
to the logarithmic derivative of the power law interpolation between
$\sigma(4.7\ {\rm K})$ and $\sigma(10.7\ {\rm K})$, shown as dashed
magenta line. The right panel contrasts these data points for the sample
with $x = 0.96$ with $w(T)$ data points for the sample with $x = 1.02$,
where different $w$ scales (with equal zero) are used. The latter data
points, read out from Fig.\ 1d of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} and
Supplementary Fig.\ 5 of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}, are marked by blue
{\large $\times$} and orange ${\textsf Y}$, respectively.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure*}

The left panel of Figure \ref{fig1} of our reconsideration makes the
above described observations easily comprehensible. Therein, the data
points of sample 0.96 given in Fig.\ 1d of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}
are redrawn, where a tenfold zoomed in $w$ scale is used. These data are
contrasted with the analytically calculated logarithmic derivative of
the $\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$ fit shown in Fig.\ 1c of Ref.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}; for related details see below. Three
characteristics of this set of redrawn data points catch the eye:
(1) When $T$ decreases from 25~K to about 10.5~K, $w(T)$ decreases too,
though more and more slowly.
(2) Between about 10.5~K and about 4.7~K, $w(T)$ exhibits a peculiar
feature, that is a pronounced hump and a subsequent swale.
(3) Finally, below about 4.7~K, with further decreasing $T$, $w(T)$
slowly rises again; $w(T)$ increases by about 9~\% from 4.7~K to 2.0~K
-- whereas the logarithmic derivative of the fit function (red curve)
decreases by 31~\% over this interval --.

It is instructive to compare the behavior of $w(T)$ for sample 0.96 to
that of $w(T)$ for sample 1.02, nominally SrNbO$_2$N. For the latter
sample, two data sets are available from Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021},
that is from Fig.\ 1d and from Suppl.\ Fig.\ 5, in the following denoted
as data sets A and B, respectively. Surprisingly, they differ
considerably from each other, as is obvious upon first look at the
respective $T$ regions around 10~K in both diagrams. These $w(T)$ data
sets are reproduced in the right panel of our Fig.\ \ref{fig1}; they are
contrasted with the $w(T)$ data for sample 0.96 therein.

According to this diagram, in case of data set A, $w(T)$ smoothly runs
through a minimum when $T$ decreases from 25~K to 2~K; the minimum is
passed at about 15~K. In contrast, the graph of set B exhibits a
pronounced hump and a subsequent swale in the intermediate $T$ region,
that is between 10.5~K and 4.7~K. Moreover, set B is clearly less dense
than set A. Above 10.5~K and below 4.7~K, however, the graphs of sets A
and B roughly agree with each other. -- The small shift between these
graphs at low $T$ would have been further diminished by ascribing the
difference quotients to the respective interval centers, instead of to
the lower interval boundaries as done in Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}.
This way, by utilizing the symmetric difference quotient \cite{numdiff},
the numerical error would have been considerably reduced; see also
Appendix C of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Moebius.2019}. --

To render the comparison of samples 0.96 and 1.02 as informative as
possible, we use different $w$ scales for the individual samples in the
right panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig1}. The left scale is valid for sample
0.96; it agrees with the $w$ scale of the left panel of Fig.\
\ref{fig1}. The right scale applying to data for sample 1.02 has the
same zero as the left one. Its unit is chosen such that, at
$T = 10.7\ {\rm K}$, the data points for both the samples roughly fall
together in this diagram.

Two striking similarities between the peculiar features of the $w(T)$
for sample 0.96 and for set B of sample 1.02 are clearly recognizable in
the right panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig1}:
(i) Both humps appear in the same $T$ region.
(ii) Both humps have approximately the same shape and the same relative
magnitude.
These two findings, together with the absence of such a peculiar feature
in the data set A for sample 1.02, suggest the following interpretation.
Both the peculiar features are very likely artifacts. Presumably, they
originate from similar errors of the related $T$ values, caused by any
shortcoming of the measuring procedure.

Below 25~K, data set A for sample 1.02 contains almost twice as much
data points as data set B. Thus, it is likely that set A results from a
remeasurement following an improved procedure. -- Surprisingly, however,
the data for sample 1.02 published in Fig.\ 1c of Ref.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} are not consistent with those in Fig.\ 1d of Ref.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}; the former ones relate to the same $T$ values as
the ones of data set B. -- Since Daichi Oka et al.\ apparently took
values with slowly sliding temperature, a change of the cooling /
heating rate may have been the origin of the peculiar features of the
$w(T)$ for sample 0.96 and for set B of sample 1.02.

The positive message from the above comparison is: the peculiar feature,
that is hump plus swale in the intermediate $T$ range, does not question
the validity of the $w(T)$ data points for $T \le 4.7\ {\rm K}$. With
respect to sample 0.96, the trustworthiness of these low-$T$ data points
is further supported by the logarithmic derivative of the power law
interpolation between $\sigma(10.7\ {\rm K})$ and
$\sigma(4.7\ {\rm K})$. This function provides a plausible estimate of
$w(T)$ for the intermediate $T$ range, $w = 0.090$, see the left panel
of Fig.\ \ref{fig1}. Therefore, it seems to be highly probable that the
slow increase of $w(T)$ with decreasing $T$ below about 4.7~K is real,
that it is not an artifact of temperature or resistivity measurements.

Apart from the mysterious feature hump plus swale, the graphical
presentations of the $w(T)$ data sets of sample 0.96 and of sample
1.02 in our Fig.\ \ref{fig1} have qualitatively similar shapes -- though
they differ in the position of the minimum and in the associated $w$
value --. This resemblance provides additional support for the above
reclassification of sample 0.96.

In this context, we stress that, apart from hump and swale, the
appearance of both the $w(T)$ data sets of the samples 0.96 and 1.02 is
rather typical for disordered solids, even if the minimum value of
$w(T)$ is as small as roughly 0.1. The reader may compare them with the
$w(T)$ data sets for compensated crystalline Si:(P,B) in Fig.\ 1 of
Ref.\ \onlinecite{Hirsch.etal.1989}, an unusually unbiased and constructive
reply to a comment. Furthermore, he may compare with data for
crystalline Si:As and CdSe:In in Figs.\ 4 and 13, respectively, of the
review Ref.\ \onlinecite{Moebius.2019} as well as with the ones for the
amorphous solids a-Si$_{1 - x}$Cr$_x$ and a-Si$_{1 - x}$Mn$_x$ in Figs.\
7 and 8, respectively, of the review Ref.\ \onlinecite{Moebius.Adkins.1999}.
Correspondingly, having the four qualitative scenarios analyzed in
Section 5 of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Moebius.2019} in mind, under certain
conditions, one may consider the $w(T)$ data of sample 0.96 as an
indication of the existence of a finite minimum metallic conductivity.

Nevertheless, alternatively, it might be speculated that, for sample
0.96, the negative slope of $w(T)$ below about 4.7~K could arise from
only a part of the sample exhibiting metallic conduction, means from the
sample being significantly inhomogeneous; compare Ref.\
\onlinecite{Hirsch.etal.1989}.

However, due to a scaling law discovered more than three decades ago, it
seems not unlikely that the observed negative slope of $w(T)$ for sample
0.96 is a generic feature: for a-Si$_{1 - x}$Cr$_x$ films deposited by
means of e-beam evaporation, the $T$ and $x$ dependences of $\sigma$
were observed to satisfy $\sigma(T,x) = \sigma_{\rm{sc}}(T / T_0(x))$
if
$\sigma(T,x) < \sigma_0 = 270 \pm 50 \ {\rm \Omega}^{-1} {\rm cm}^{-1}$
and $100\ {\rm mK} < T < 50\ {\rm K}$ \cite{Moebius.etal.1985}. In
words: under these conditions, $\sigma(T,x)$ is completely determined
by the quotient of $T$ and an empirically introduced characteristic
temperature $T_0(x)$. Since $\sigma_{\rm{sc}}(T / T_0) \rightarrow 0$
as $T / T_0 \rightarrow 0$, this behavior is related to activated
conduction. It implies the existence of a finite minimum metallic
conductivity, in contradiction to Ref.\ \onlinecite{Abrahams.etal.1979}. --
This scaling behavior, however, breaks down in consequence of annealing,
that is in consequence of the formation of nanocrystallites, see
Subsection 3.3 of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Moebius.etal.1985}. Nevertheless, the
appearance of $\sigma(T,x)$ varies only gradually in this process, not
abruptly. --

When we have the possibility of such a scaling in mind, what do we have
to look out for when studying other solids? For the reconsideration at
hand particularly important: within the validity range of this scaling
law, the slope of $w(T)$ is always negative. In various cases, the
latter feature has motivated the study of $w(T)$ as cross-check of the
interpretation of $\sigma(T)$ in terms of metallic conduction, see Ref.\
\onlinecite{Moebius.2019} and references therein.

For the reconsideration at hand similarly important: the validity range
of the mentioned scaling law encompasses not only a conductivity region
in which fast, exponential $T$ dependences are observed, but,
furthermore, also a conductivity region where $\sigma(T)$ varies slowly,
in some non-exponential manner with $T$. -- Concerning exponential $T$
dependences, such scaling relations were observed to hold in several
other homogeneous systems too \cite{Moebius.1985}. --

The scaling referred to in the previous three paragraphs has a
fundamental consequence: {\sl the closer the composition of the sample
to that at the MIT, the higher is the lowest experimentally accessible
temperature}. This only at first glance absurd statement relates to the
point that it is not the ratio of $T$ to the absolute unit Kelvin that
is crucial here, but that it is the ratio of $T$ to the characteristic
hopping temperature, $T_0(x)$: for $T \gg T_0(x)$, $\sigma(T/T_0(x))$
varies in some non-exponential manner, even if e.g.\ $T = 1\ {\rm K}$.
Therefore, since the parameter $T_0(x)$ apparently converges to 0 as
the MIT is approached from the insulator side, the following
interpretation difficulty arises in any experiment: there is some finite
$x$ range prior to the MIT in which only non-exponential $T$ dependences
of $\sigma$ can be observed; see the schematic diagram Fig.\ 2 of Ref.\
\onlinecite{Moebius.Adkins.1999}. Without very thorough data analysis -- as
the evaluation of $w(T)$ --, such $\sigma(T)$ data may easily be
misinterpreted to indicate metallic conduction.

\section{Approximation by $\sigma(T) = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$}

Assume now, a reader is not aware of this principal difficulty and has
no information on $w(T)$. Then Fig.\ 1c of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021},
in particular the seemingly rather good quality of the
$\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$ fit to the data of sample 0.96, may
mislead him: it could make him feel sure about this sample being clearly
metallic. So the following questions arise. Is the quality of the
approximation shown in Fig.\ 1c of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} really as
convincing as it seems at first glance? How reliable are the parameter
estimates of this approximation? Why does it work quite well over a
rather wide $T$ range?

\begin{figure*} [t]
\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth]{fig_2_moebius}
\caption{Temperature dependence of the conductivity, $\sigma(T)$, for
the sample with $x = 0.96$. According to Refs.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021,Altshuler.Aronov.1979}, it should be linear in such
a $\sigma$ versus $T^{\, 1 / 2}$ plot. Data points read out directly
from Fig.\ 1c of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} are marked by
{\large $\times$}, whereas the points which were refined additionally
incorporating Fig.\ 1d of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} -- see text --
are given as {\large $+$}. Left panel: Comparison of three fits of
$\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$ to the refined data points focusing
on different temperature ranges: the solid red, dashed green, and dashed
dotted blue lines relate to the intervals 2 to 14~K, 7 to 19~K, and
2 to 4~K, respectively. Right panel: presentation of the fit concerning
the $T$ interval 7 to 19~K in an extended $T$ range. For that,
additionally, resistivity data were read out from Fig.\ 1b of Ref.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} by means of automatic pixel by pixel digitization.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure*}

Insight into these interpretation issues is gained by studying under
which conditions significant deviations of the measured data points of
sample 0.96 from the adjusted function $\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$
occur. For such an analysis, one needs as precise as possible
$(T_i,\sigma_i)$ data. Thus, first, we checked the precision of the data
read out from Fig.\ 1c of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} by comparing the
$w_i$ values calculated from the digitized $(T_i,\sigma_i)$ to the $w_i$
data read out from Fig.\ 1d of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}. Then, we used
the digitized $T_i$ and $w_i$ to refine the $\sigma_i$ values. This
precision improvement bases on the digitized $w_i$ having a smaller
discretization error than the differences between neighboring $\sigma_i$
as read out. Additionally, a tiny constant shift of all $w_i$ was
allowed to minimize the sum of the squares of the small corrections of
the $\sigma_i$ values in the refinement; the optimum constant shift
corresponds to roughly half a pixel in Fig.\ 1d of Ref.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}.

The results are presented in our Figure \ref{fig2}. Its left panel
displays $\sigma$ vs.\ $T^{\, 1 / 2}$ with much better $\sigma$
resolution than Fig.\ 1c of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}. Two data sets
are shown therein: the set of $\sigma(T)$ points obtained directly by
means of digitization of Fig.\ 1c of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}, as well
as the refined set obtained as described in the previous paragraph. Both
these data sets deviate only slightly from each other. Completing, the
right panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig2} presents an overview over a considerably
wider $T$ range, from 0~K to 49~K, though with somewhat lower $\sigma$
resolution. It combines the refined set and data read out from Fig.\ 1b
of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}.

The left panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig2} compares three fits of the function
$\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$ to different subsets of the set of the
refined digitized data:
(1) The solid red line corresponds to the approximation shown in Fig.\
1c of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}: the parameters $a$ and $b$ are
adjusted to optimally reproduce the measuring points within the $T$
interval 2~K to 14~K. This fit yields
$\sigma(0\ {\rm K}) = a = 75.7\ {\rm \Omega}^{-1} {\rm cm}^{-1}$, in
very good agreement with the value read out from Fig.\ 1c of Ref.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}, $75.8\ {\rm \Omega}^{-1} {\rm cm}^{-1}$.
\linebreak
(2) The dashed green line refers to a fit to the data points within an
intermediate $T$ region, that is $7\ \rm{K} < T < 19\ \rm{K}$.
According to this approximation
$\sigma(0\ {\rm K}) = 78.6\ {\rm \Omega}^{-1} {\rm cm}^{-1}$.
(3) The dashed-dotted blue line presents a fit to the data points taken
at the three lowest $T$ values, $2\ \rm{K} < T < 4\ \rm{K}$; it
yields $\sigma(0\ {\rm K}) = 70.2\ {\rm \Omega}^{-1} {\rm cm}^{-1}$.

Three conclusions can be drawn from this comparison. First, substantial
deviations from the $\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$ approximation are
clearly recognizable. Second, these deviations have primarily a
systematic, non-random character: apparently, the experimental
$\sigma(T)$ crosses the solid red line only twice. Third, the
extrapolation to $T = 0 \ \rm{K}$ depends considerably on which $T$
interval is taken into account in the fit: the lower the upper boundary
of this $T$ interval, the smaller is the estimated value of
$\sigma(0\ {\rm K})$.

In spite of the above demonstrated low-temperature extrapolation
uncertainty, the fit of $\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$ to the measured
$\sigma(T)$ data given in Fig.\ 1c of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} seems
to yield a quite reasonable approximation within a rather wide interval.
The question is why. Inclusion of data of sample 0.96 from Fig.\ 1b of
Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} into the comparison solves this puzzle: the
right panel  of our Fig.\ \ref{fig2} completes the set of refined data
of sample 0.96 with data from Fig.\ 1b of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} for
$15 \ \rm{K} \lesssim T < 49 \ \rm{K}$. Contrasting this composed
graph with the $\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$ fit to all refined data
points within the range $7\ \rm{K} < T < 19\ \rm{K}$, marked by the
dashed green line, suggests the following explanation.

\begin{figure*} [t]
\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth]{fig_3_moebius}
\caption{Temperature dependences of the deviations between measured
data and their $\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$ approximation, relating
to the interval $2\ \rm{K} < T < 14\ \rm{K}$, for the sample with
$x = 0.96$. The left panel presents the absolute conductivity misfit,
while the right panel shows the relative temperature misfit, see text.
}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure*}

Overall, the experimental relation $\sigma(T^{\, 1 / 2})$ shown in
the right panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig2} has an inverse S shape and,
correspondingly, an inflection point within the considered $T$ range;
this characteristic temperature amounts to (very) roughly 10~K. So the
dashed green line represents a linear fit focusing on the surroundings
of an inflection point. Therefore, the quadratic term of the Taylor
expansion at the fit interval center is almost negligible so that the
region of approximately linear behavior of $\sigma(T^{\, 1 / 2})$ should
be comparably wide. Thus, simply for numerical reasons, it is not
surprising that the dashed green line provides a quite reasonable
description over the rather wide $T$ range from 4~K to 25~K.

As cross-check of this interpretation, consider the fit focusing on the
interval 2~K to 4~K -- dashed-dotted blue line in the left panel of
Fig.\ \ref{fig2} --. It concerns a region considerably away from the
inflection point. As expected, it seems to have a far smaller
applicability range; in this case, the judgement bases on the estimation
of the upper half width of the range.

\section{Sample as secondary thermometer}

Now, we have a closer look at the deviations of the $\sigma(T)$ data
points of sample 0.96 from their $\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$
approximation. The left panel of our Figure \ref{fig3} shows the
differences between the refined $\sigma_i$ data and the corresponding
values $a + b \, T_i^{\, 1 / 2}$ of the fit for the region 2~K to
14~K; this approximation focuses on the same $T$ interval as considered
in Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}. -- Note: the resolution of the vertical
axis of the left panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig3} is by a factor 13 higher than
that of the $\sigma$ axis of the left panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig2}. --

Loosely speaking, the left panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig3} presumes the $T$
values to be exact and shows how the deviation of the $\sigma$ value
from its estimate depends on $T$. Complementing this presentation, the
right panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig3} relates to the opposite perspective: the
$\sigma$ values are presumed to be exact, and we ask for the deviation
of the measured $T$ value from the $T$ value estimated on the
basis of the same $\sigma = a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$ approximation. In
other words, in the right panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig3}, the sample is
considered as secondary thermometer: to each value of $\sigma_i$, a
secondary temperature value, $T^{\rm sec}_i$, is ascribed. The
corresponding relative misfit, $(T_i - T^{\rm sec}_i) / T_i$,
is depicted versus the actual temperature, $T_i$, in this diagram.

The left panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig3} confirms the presence of substantial
systematic, non-random deviations between measured data and fit.
Furthermore, it provides the following two interesting messages. The
very systematic $T$ dependence of the deviation between measured data
and fit present above 10~K testifies the rather high precision of the
resistivity measurements by Daichi Oka and co-workers. Simultaneously,
however, this $T$ dependence exhibits a strange feature between about
5~K and about 10~K, marked by a red ellipse. That presumable
inconsistency correlates with the peculiar feature hump plus swale
illuminated in our analysis of the logarithmic derivative of $\sigma(T)$
above. These statements are confirmed by the right panel of Fig.\
\ref{fig3}.

Finally, we point to two quantitative conclusions which can be drawn
from the right panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig3}. First, above 3~K, the relative
misfit, $(T_i - T^{\rm sec}_i) / T_i$, varies between as much as -9~\%
and +8~\%. Second, below 3~K, where the relative misfit is positive, it
increases rapidly with decreasing $T$ and reaches a value of 24~\% at
2~K! Of course, this sharp increase should be checked by additional
measurements at intermediate $T$ values. Furthermore, an extension of
the considered $T$ range down to 1.8~K -- presumably in reach of the
equipment used in Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} -- should be very helpful
in clarifying the situation.

Both these findings are further strong arguments against the
significance of the $T \rightarrow 0$ extrapolation of the
$a + b \, T^{\, 1 / 2}$ fit to the $\sigma(T)$ data presented in Ref.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}.

\section{Conclusions}

We summarize: regarding the sample with $x = 0.96$, Daichi Oka and
co-workers comprehensively reported on their quite careful, albeit not
problem-free determinations of $\sigma(T)$ and $w(T)$ in Figs.\ 1b, 1c,
and 1d of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}. In doing so, unfortunately, they
used inappropriate $\sigma$ and $w$ scales. Here, zooming into Figs.\ 1c
and 1d of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}, we have uncovered a fundamental
contradiction between the authors' theoretical interpretation of these
$\sigma(T)$ measurements and their $w(T)$ data, obtained in an
ansatz-free manner: the authors consider this sample as metallic, but
$w(T)$ does not decrease correspondingly with decreasing $T$ below
4.7~K. In the present reconsideration of the respective part of Ref.\
\onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}, that problem has been analyzed from three
different perspectives.

It is astonishing that the contradiction highlighted here was not
mentioned in the text of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} with any word. It
was not mentioned though, concerning the interpretation of $w(T)$ data,
the authors cite Ref.\ \onlinecite{Moebius.2019}; that recent critical review
discusses observations and consequences of similar behavior of $w(T)$
for various other disordered solids in great detail. It seems,
none of the authors of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021} noticed the lack of a
hint to the above illuminated contradiction.

Thus an unusual question suggests itself: to which extent is the
narrative that the scaling theory of localization
\cite{Abrahams.etal.1979} qualitatively correctly describes the MIT of
various three-dimensional disordered systems a result of confirmation
bias? Serious doubts about this theory have been on the table at least
since the surprising identification of a metallic phase in
two-dimensional disordered systems
\cite{Kravchenko.etal.1994,Kravchenko.Sarachik.2004} already almost
three decades ago. They arise from the existence of such a phase being
ruled out by the scaling theory of localization
\cite{Abrahams.etal.1979}.

Hence, further thorough and unbiased experimental studies of the MIT in
disordered solids are urgently needed. In this respect, it will
certainly be highly valuable if Daichi Oka and co-workers repeat the
$\sigma(T)$ measurement of their sample with $x = 0.96$ with increased
precision -- provided this sample is sufficiently long-term stable --.
In doing so, compared to Ref.\ \onlinecite{Oka.etal.2021}, a greater part of
the data points should be taken close to the lower end of the $T$ region
considered: constant quotient of subsequent $T$ values is more
appropriate than constant difference. The precision and significance of
such measurements will benefit from carefully thermalizing the setup of
sample and thermometer before each resistivity measurement, instead of
measuring with slowly sliding temperature. Including into the proposed
study additional samples with slightly different composition will
presumably be fruitful.

\vspace{0.5cm}

\begin{center} {\bf Acknowledgments} \end{center}

Various critical remarks by Manuel Richter were very helpful in
improving the manuscript.

\begin{center} {\bf Ethics declaration} \end{center}

The author declares no competing interests.

\begin{center} {\bf Data availability} \end{center}

All data obtained in this analysis are available from the author upon
reasonable request.

\vspace{0.5cm}