{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.039486673247778874, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005923000987166831, 'mean_word_length': 5.993103448275862, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ruling out any electrophilicity equalization principle.

Two gas-phase electrophilicity indices, ω(1) and ω(2), introduced by Parr, von Szentpály, and Liu are tested with respect to the recently proposed "principle of electrophilicity equalization." Although electronegativity is equalized in many cases, there is no functioning "hardness equalization principle" nor are the electrophilicity indices principally equalized during molecule formation: they cannot be generally expressed as the mean of the corresponding atomic indices. For large metal clusters and [n]fullerenes, both electrophilicity indices increase proportional to n(1/3) and n(1/2), respectively, as the hardness values converge to zero. Two "principles" are shown to be obsolete: the "geometric mean principle for hardness equalization" and the "principle of electrophilicity equalization", with the latter somewhat relying on the former. An appeal is made to exercise careful judgment before proposing and publishing new structural principles.