Suppl. Fig. 7. The reconstructed shower angle for all single photon events. The individual signal and background event type categories added together form the unconstrained prediction.

Suppl. Fig. 7. The constrained covariance matrix for the reconstructed shower angle for all single-photon events. The matrix shows uncertainties and correlations between bins due to flux uncertainties, cross-section uncertainties, hadron reinteraction uncertainties, detector systematic uncertainties, Monte-Carlo statistical uncertainties, and dirt (outside cryostat) uncertainties. Data statistical uncertainties are not included. An example of how to add Pearson data statistical uncertainties can be found in the example code repository.

Suppl. Fig. 7. The unconstrained covariance matrix for reconstructed shower angle for all single-photon events. The matrix shows uncertainties and correlations between bins due to flux uncertainties, cross-section uncertainties, hadron reinteraction uncertainties, detector systematic uncertainties, Monte-Carlo statistical uncertainties, and dirt (outside cryostat) uncertainties. Data statistical uncertainties are not included. An example of how to add Pearson data statistical uncertainties can be found in the example code repository.

Fig. 3. The reconstructed number of protons, with a proton KE energy threshold of 35 MeV, for all single-photon events. The individual signal and background event type categories added together form the unconstrained prediction.

Fig. 4, Suppl. Fig. 8. The reconstructed shower energy for zero proton events binned from 0 to 600 MeV. The individual signal and background event type categories added together form the unconstrained prediction.

Fig. 4. The constrained covariance matrix for the reconstructed shower energy for zero proton events binned from 0 to 600 MeV. The matrix shows uncertainties and correlations between bins due to flux uncertainties, cross-section uncertainties, hadron reinteraction uncertainties, detector systematic uncertainties, Monte-Carlo statistical uncertainties, and dirt (outside cryostat) uncertainties. Data statistical uncertainties are not included. An example of how to add Pearson data statistical uncertainties can be found in the example code repository.

Fig. 4. The unconstrained covariance matrix for reconstructed shower energy for zero proton events binned from 0 to 600 MeV. The matrix shows uncertainties and correlations between bins due to flux uncertainties, cross-section uncertainties, hadron reinteraction uncertainties, detector systematic uncertainties, Monte-Carlo statistical uncertainties, and dirt (outside cryostat) uncertainties. Data statistical uncertainties are not included. An example of how to add Pearson data statistical uncertainties can be found in the example code repository.

Fig. 6. The reconstructed shower energy for zero proton events binned from 150 to 1250 MeV, with LEE prediction. The individual signal and background event type categories added together form the unconstrained prediction. The "LEE" category is the unfolded MiniBooNE LEE model prediction scaled under the neutrino-target nucleon interaction assumption.

Fig. 6. The constrained covariance matrix for the reconstructed shower energy for zero proton events binned from 150 to 1250 MeV. Both with and without the LEE model added. The matrix shows uncertainties and correlations between bins due to flux uncertainties, cross-section uncertainties, hadron reinteraction uncertainties, detector systematic uncertainties, Monte-Carlo statistical uncertainties, and dirt (outside cryostat) uncertainties. Data statistical uncertainties are not included. An example of how to add Pearson data statistical uncertainties can be found in the example code repository.

Fig. 6. The unconstrained covariance matrix for reconstructed shower energy for zero proton events binned from 150 to 1250 MeV. Both with and without the LEE model added. The matrix shows uncertainties and correlations between bins due to flux uncertainties, cross-section uncertainties, hadron reinteraction uncertainties, detector systematic uncertainties, Monte-Carlo statistical uncertainties, and dirt (outside cryostat) uncertainties. Data statistical uncertainties are not included. An example of how to add Pearson data statistical uncertainties can be found in the example code repository.

Suppl. Fig. 10. The reconstructed shower backwards projected distance for zero proton events. The individual signal and background event type categories added together form the unconstrained prediction.

Suppl. Fig. 9. The reconstructed shower angle for zero proton events. Includes LEE model prediction. The individual signal and background event type categories added together form the unconstrained prediction. The "LEE" category is the unfolded MiniBooNE LEE model prediction scaled under the neutrino-target nucleon interaction assumption.

Suppl. Fig. 9. The constrained covariance matrix for the reconstructed shower angle for zero proton events. The matrix shows uncertainties and correlations between bins due to flux uncertainties, cross-section uncertainties, hadron reinteraction uncertainties, detector systematic uncertainties, Monte-Carlo statistical uncertainties, and dirt (outside cryostat) uncertainties. Data statistical uncertainties are not included. An example of how to add Pearson data statistical uncertainties can be found in the example code repository.

Suppl. Fig. 9. The unconstrained covariance matrix for reconstructed shower angle for zero proton events. The matrix shows uncertainties and correlations between bins due to flux uncertainties, cross-section uncertainties, hadron reinteraction uncertainties, detector systematic uncertainties, Monte-Carlo statistical uncertainties, and dirt (outside cryostat) uncertainties. Data statistical uncertainties are not included. An example of how to add Pearson data statistical uncertainties can be found in the example code repository.

1$\gamma$Xp shower energy and angle selection efficiencies for true 1$\gamma$Xp events. NaN values indicate a "divide by zero" case where zero events were present in the bin before any selection was applied. Energy and Angle values represent bin lower edges.

1$\gamma$0p shower energy and angle selection efficiencies for true single-photon events with no other true particles of any energy. NaN values indicate a "divide by zero" case where zero events were present in the bin before any selection was applied. Energy and Angle values represent bin lower edges.

Covariance matrix showing uncertainties and correlations between bins due to flux uncertainties, cross-section uncertainties, hadron reinteraction uncertainties, detector systematic uncertainties, Monte-Carlo statistical uncertainties, and dirt (outside cryostat) uncertainties. Pearson data statistical uncertainties have been included, and include small correlations due to events which can be selected by both WC and Pandora. The first four bins are the WC $1\gamma Np$, WC $1\gamma 0p$, Pandora $1\gamma 1p$, and Pandora $1\gamma 0p$ channels, and the next four sets of 16 bins are the NC $\pi^0 Np$, NC $\pi^0 0p$, $\nu_\mu$CC $Np$, and $\nu_\mu$CC $0p$ channels. This corresponds to Fig. 1 of the paper and Fig. 6 of the Supplemental Material.

Constrained WC $1\gamma Np$ energy distribution. There are 6 bins from 0 to 600 MeV of reconstructed shower energy, with an additional overflow bin. Constrained systematic uncertainties on the predictions are illustrated, and a more detailed covariance matrix is included in the Constrained Energy Distributions Covariance Matrix tab. This corresponds to Fig. 2 of the paper.

Constrained WC $1\gamma 0p$ energy distribution. There are 14 bins from 0 to 700 MeV of reconstructed shower energy, with an additional overflow bin. Constrained systematic uncertainties on the predictions are illustrated, and a more detailed covariance matrix is included in the Constrained Energy Distributions Covariance Matrix tab. This corresponds to Fig. 2 of the paper.

Constrained Pandora $1\gamma 1p$ energy distribution. There are 6 bins from 0 to 600 MeV of reconstructed shower energy, with an additional overflow bin. Constrained systematic uncertainties on the predictions are illustrated, and a more detailed covariance matrix is included in the Constrained Energy Distributions Covariance Matrix tab. This corresponds to Fig. 2 of the paper.

Constrained Pandora $1\gamma 0p$ energy distribution. There are 14 bins from 0 to 700 MeV of reconstructed shower energy, with an additional overflow bin. Constrained systematic uncertainties on the predictions are illustrated, and a more detailed covariance matrix is included in the Constrained Energy Distributions Covariance Matrix tab. This corresponds to Fig. 2 of the paper.

Constrained covariance matrix showing constrained uncertainties and correlations between bins due to flux uncertainties, cross-section uncertainties, hadron reinteraction uncertainties, detector systematic uncertainties, Monte-Carlo statistical uncertainties, and dirt (outside cryostat) uncertainties. Pearson data statistical uncertainties have been included, and include small correlations due to events which can be selected by both WC and Pandora. The first seven bins are the WC $1\gamma Np$ reconstructed shower energy from 0-600 MeV with an overflow bin, the next 15 bins are the WC $1\gamma 0p$ reconstructed shower energy from 0-700 MeV with an overflow bin, the next seven bins are the Pandora $1\gamma 1p$ reconstructed shower energy from 0-600 MeV with an overflow bin, and the last 15 bins are the Pandora $1\gamma 0p$ reconstructed shower energy from 0-700 MeV with an overflow bin. This corresponds to Fig. 2 of the paper.

2D efficiency matrix showing the efficiency of the WC $1\gamma Np$ selection with respect to all true NC Delta Radiative Decay events which interact in the fiducial volume. The efficiency is shown as a function of true photon energy and angle. There are 10 bins from -1 to 1 in true photon $\cos \theta$ and 15 bins from 0 to 1500 MeV in true photon energy. NaN values indicate a "divide by zero" case where zero events were present in the bin before any selection was applied. This corresponds to Fig. 9 of the Supplemental Material.

2D efficiency matrix showing the efficiency of the WC $1\gamma 0p$ selection with respect to all true NC Delta Radiative Decay events which interact in the fiducial volume. The efficiency is shown as a function of true photon energy and angle. There are 10 bins from -1 to 1 in true photon $\cos \theta$ and 30 bins from 0 to 1500 MeV in true photon energy. NaN values indicate a "divide by zero" case where zero events were present in the bin before any selection was applied. This corresponds to Fig. 9 of the Supplemental Material.

2D efficiency matrix showing the efficiency of the Pandora $1\gamma 1p$ selection with respect to all true NC Delta Radiative Decay events which interact in the fiducial volume. The efficiency is shown as a function of true photon energy and angle. There are 10 bins from -1 to 1 in true photon $\cos \theta$ and 15 bins from 0 to 1500 MeV in true photon energy, with lower bin edges indicated in the table. NaN values indicate a "divide by zero" case where zero events were present in the bin before any selection was applied. This corresponds to Fig. 9 of the Supplemental Material.

2D efficiency matrix showing the efficiency of the Pandora $1\gamma 0p$ selection with respect to all true NC Delta Radiative Decay events which interact in the fiducial volume. The efficiency is shown as a function of true photon energy and angle. There are 10 bins from -1 to 1 in true photon $\cos \theta$ and 30 bins from 0 to 1500 MeV in true photon energy, with lower bin edges indicated in the table. NaN values indicate a "divide by zero" case where zero events were present in the bin before any selection was applied. This corresponds to Fig. 9 of the Supplemental Material.

2D efficiency matrix showing the efficiency of the WC $1\gamma 0p$ selection with respect to all true zero-primary-final-state-proton NC Delta Radiative Decay events which interact in the fiducial volume. The efficiency is shown as a function of true photon energy and angle. There are 10 bins from -1 to 1 in true photon $\cos \theta$ and 30 bins from 0 to 1500 MeV in true photon energy, with lower bin edges indicated in the table. NaN values indicate a "divide by zero" case where zero events were present in the bin before any selection was applied.

2D efficiency matrix showing the efficiency of the Pandora $1\gamma 0p$ selection with respect to all true zero-primary-final-state-proton NC Delta Radiative Decay events which interact in the fiducial volume. The efficiency is shown as a function of true photon energy and angle. There are 10 bins from -1 to 1 in true photon $\cos \theta$ and 30 bins from 0 to 1500 MeV in true photon energy, with lower bin edges indicated in the table. NaN values indicate a "divide by zero" case where zero events were present in the bin before any selection was applied.

$\chi_{c0}(4500) \to J/\psi(\to \mu^+ \mu^-)\phi(\to K^+ K^-)$ diffractive production cross-section, multiplied by $\mathcal{B}(J/\psi \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$ and $\mathcal{B}(\phi \to K^+ K^-)$ branching ratios.

$\chi_{c1}(4685) \ \mathrm{or} \ \chi_{c0}(4700) \to J/\psi(\to \mu^+ \mu^-)\phi(\to K^+ K^-)$ diffractive production cross-section, multiplied by $\mathcal{B}(J/\psi \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$ and $\mathcal{B}(\phi \to K^+ K^-)$ branching ratios.

Nonresonant $J/\psi(\to \mu^+ \mu^-)\phi(\to K^+ K^-)$ diffractive production cross-section, multiplied by $\mathcal{B}(J/\psi \to \mu^+ \mu^-)$ and $\mathcal{B}(\phi \to K^+ K^-)$ branching ratios.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

QED correction factors for inclusive measurement, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

The correlation matrix for the inclusive measurement. The azimuthal correlation angle $\Delta\phi$ of each lepton--leading-jet pair was assigned a bin ID between 0 to 59 segmented uniformly from 0 to $\pi$. This bin ID was offset by multiples of 60 based on the jet multiplicity so that the pair from a single jet event, as suggested by the MC simulation, was assigned a value between 0 to 59, dijet events were given 60 to 119, trijet 120 to 179, and four or more jets 180 to 239.

The correlation matrix for $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

Correlation matrix of the unfolding uncertainty between the inclusive-jet measurement and the previous dijet measurement. Correlations are given in percent.

Summary of different determinations of $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$ at NNLO or higher order, adapted from PDG, see references therein. The red points are included in the PDG world average. The averages from each sub-field are shown as yellow bands and the world average as a blue band. A recent measurement from CMS using jet cross sections and the latest determination from HERAPDF, which are not yet included in the world average, are shown in green. The current determination, assuming half-correlated and half-uncorrelated scale uncertainties, is shown in black.

Value of the strong coupling $\alpha_s(\mu^2)$ as a function of the scale $\mu$. The data points indicate determinations from measurements that were performed close to the indicated scale. The uncertainties represent the full uncertainty of each determination. All depicted results were obtained at least at NNLO. They are based on data from $e^+e^-$, $ep$ and $pp$ collisions, as well as from $\tau$ lepton decays and quarkonium states. The solid blue line shows the PDG world average. Also shown are the $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$ values corresponding to each data point.

Double-differential inclusive-jet cross sections using the alternative treatment of QED radiation, as explained in <a href="https://inspirehep.net/literature/2714089">the accompanying thesis</a> (section 9.5.3 and table C.7) and <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18136">arXiv:2405.18136</a>. The alternative treatment affects the central value of the cross sections, $\sigma$, the QED correction factors $c_\text{QED}$ and their uncertainty and the sum of all uncorrelated uncertainties $\delta_\text{uncor}$. All other uncertainties and corrections are identical to Tables 1 and 2 and should be taken from there.

The performance of jet energy resolution (JER) for jets with |y| < 2.1 evaluated as a function of pT_truth in different centrality bins. Simulated hard scatter events were overlaid onto events from a dedicated sample of minimum-bias Xe+Xe data. The fit parameters are listed in a sperate table (Extras 1)

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for per-pair normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for absolutely normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for rho distributions for leading jets in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

Parameter a,b, and c from JER fits in Figure 1b.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.