Comparison of the NFW models from our analysis (black circles and blue squares) and previous works with concentration–mass–redshift relations derived from N-body simulations. All results are expressed in terms of the virial mass of haloes M_vir, except for Moliné et al. (2017) who measured the relation using M₂₀₀, i.e. the mass within the radius enclosing an overdensity of 200. In this case, the relation has an additional dependence on the distance of the subhalo from the centre of its host halo. Since the observational results are derived in projection (on the lens plane), we cannot determine the three-dimensional distance from the host centre, and we plot a range of relations for distances between 0.1R_vir and R_vir. Given that it was calibrated on subhaloes rather than isolated haloes, it naturally predicts higher concentrations at the low-mass end. In each panel, the coloured symbols and error bars show our inferred values from the analysis of the observations (black circle and blue square) and the results from previous works (empty symbols), listed in Table 2. Şengül & Dvorkin (2022) used a fixed mass M_sub = 10⁹ M_⊙ and varied the inner slope of the profile (that we report in the table), from which they estimated a corresponding concentration but did not provide uncertainties in this quantity.