3 fall-off of the DOS at energies above the (small) PG fea- ture around E$_{F}$ instead of a LFL peak at E$_{F}$ is seen for the d$_{xz,yz,x}$ 2 − y 2 DOS. Finally, the low-energ kink feature clearly seen for x = 0 (solid curve) is smoothened with x . Based on the agreement with transport above, we pre- dict that PES (ARPES) measurements on FeSe$_{1}$ − $_{x}$Te$_{x}$ as a function of x should show all these features in the spectral function with x . only shows two sign changes for metallic (above T$_{c}$ ) com- positions. For large x > 0 . 5, appearance of insulator-like behavior above T$_{c}$ [13] goes hand-in-hand with only one sign change at high T ∗ ≃ 150 K in S ( T ), also consistent with findings [9]. Also the anomalies in S ( T ) and ( d $^{n}$ρ$_{dc}$ /dT $^{n}$) with n = 1 , 2 at the much lower T$_{an}$ [17], observed for the first time in a correlated system [10], are recovered too within our LDA+DMFT. In a band-LFL picture, this behavior would be associated with hole conduction, but such a connection is tenuous in the incoherent metal we find. In real FeSe$_{1}$ − $_{x}$Te$_{x}$ , USC and/or AF actually cuts off this behavior, leading to S ( T → 0) = 0. Looking closer at the T → 0 limit within our uniform, symmetry- unbroken, state calculation, we find that S ( T → 0) ≃ T η with η ≤ 1. Correspondingly, ρ$_{dc}$ ( T ) ≃ AT up to lowest T . Neither ρ$_{dc}$ ( T ) ≃ T nor S ( T ) ≃ T η with η ≤ 1 at low T are interpretable in terms of transport associated with LFL quasiparticles; rather, they suggest transport in terms of incoherent, collective excitations in the non- LFL metal. If the above features are related to the mech- anism of superconductivity (SC) [10], our analysis has far-reaching implications for the SC-instability. Specifi- cally, our results now imply that SC must arise directly as an instability of a normal non-LFL metal without long- lived fermionic quasiparticles, and that the d$_{xz,yz,x}$ 2 − y 2 bands will play a central role in pairing, with the rest playing a secondary role, as in a proximity effect sce- nario. Recall that, in our earlier LDA+DMFT study Remarkably, the full set of our theoretical ρ$_{dc}$ ( T, x ) and S ( T, x ) results are in very good agreement with a range of extant results obtained by two groups [9, 10]. Our work is the first detailed theoretical study of elec- trical and thermal transport in Fe-based superconduc- tors. These remarkable results clearly call for a deeper microscopic rationalization. Since vertex corrections to conductivities rigorously vanish in DMFT [16], these fea- tures must be intimately linked to the detailed evolution of the LDA+DMFT spectral functions with T and x . In Fig. 3, we show the LDA+DMFT orbital-reolved DOS, ρ$_{a}$ ( ω ), for the doping values above. Clear signatures of normal state incoherent metal behavior, along with a low-energy PG, are visible in the DOS, providing a clear link between PG features in transport and spectral re- sponses. In particular, we observe important changes in the LDA+DMFT DOS with x , and these must be corre- lated with features in transport. The d$_{xz,yz}$ DOS always has a deep PG, while the d$_{xy}$ DOS rapidly loses the small LFL coherence with x . The d$_{x}$ 2 − y 2 DOS shows a progres- sively deeper PG feature with x , while the reverse occurs for the d$_{3}$$_{z}$ 2 − r 2 DOS. These go hand-in-hand with large changes in spectral weight transfer (SWT), a character- istic feature of Mottness [18]. Further, clear power-law FIG. 3: (Color online) LDA+DMFT spectral functions for FeSe$_{1}$$_{−}$ x Te x . Clear pseudogap stabilization with increasing x going hand-in-hand with large scale SWT is apparent. Power- law fall-offs in the d$_{xz,yz,x}$ $^{2$_{−}$}$y2 spectra above the low-energy PG, associated with orbital-selective incoherence, are also vis- ible. FIG. 2: (Color online) Seebeck coefficient (top left) and thermal conductivity (top right) for FeSe$_{1}$$_{−}$ x Te x within LDA+DMFT. Notice the S ( T ) =const. form at high- T , de- creasing around T PG and showing a second crossing at much lower T an , all in excellent agreement with data [9, 10]. The thermoelectric figure of merit, ZT , is shown in the lower panel. Notice the high value of ZT for x = 0 . 6. −2.0 0.0 (eV) 0.0 0.1 0.2 x $_{2}$−y 2 n$_{t}$=6.0 n$_{t}$=6.2 n$_{t}$=6.4 n$_{t}$=6.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 3z $_{2}$−r 2 −2.0 0.0 2.0 (eV) 0.0 0.1 0.2 xy 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 xz,yz 0 100 200 300 T (K) −45 −30 −15 0 15 S( V/K) 0 100 200 300 T (K) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 k(W/Kcm) 1 10 100 T(K) 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 ZT n$_{t}$=6.0 n$_{t}$=6.2 n$_{t}$=6.4 n$_{t}$=6.6