“…The two density functional methods were employed owing to their accurate predictions for metal‐ligand binding energies, structure energies, proton affinities, and harmonic frequencies, and for improved treatment of spin states, and have a smaller mean absolute deviation or mean unassigned error than the more widely used B3LYP method [16,19]; it has been shown [20] that M06‐L and X3LYP, when used with a correlation consistent basis set, reproduce metal ion‐organic ligand structural parameters to within about 0.01 Å deviation from measured values. For this reason, aug‐cc‐pVDZ [21] was used for H, N, C, and O, and SDDAll [22] with effective core potentials was used for the metals to accurately describe the heavy elements [23]. [ M ·Pro‐H] + multiplicities of singlet, triplet, and quintet were explored for both isomer types as they can affect ordering of structural energies [2].…”