a, Fits to a series of superconducting gaps obtained at the positions shown in the inset as we move from Te1 (site A) to Te2 (site E). The dI/dV curves are fitted with the Dynes function including the thermal broadening effect40,41: \(\frac{{\rm{d}}I}{{\rm{d}}V}(V)={N}_{0}\int {\rm{Re}}\left[\frac{V+\omega +{\rm{i}}G}{\sqrt{{(V+\omega +{\rm{i}}G)}^{2}-{{\Delta }}^{2}(\theta ,\varphi )}}\right]\left(-\frac{\partial f}{\partial \omega }\right){\rm{d}}\omega +{N}_{{\rm{u}}}\), where f is the Fermi–Dirac distribution function at 0.3 K, N 0 is proportional to the LDOS in the normal state, N u is related to the residual LDOS dominated by unpaired electrons, which is set at 0.5 based on the specific-heat data, and G quantifies the effect of the pair-breaking processes, which is related to the quasiparticle lifetime (ω, energy; θ, polar angle; ϕ, azimuthal angle). The most important parameter here is the superconducting-gap function Δ(θ, ϕ). Here, we tried both the s-wave gap Δ(θ, ϕ) = Δ 0 and the proposed spin-triplet p x + ip y gap \({\Delta }({\theta },\varphi )={{\Delta }}_{0}|{\hat{k}}_{x}+{\rm{i}}{\hat{k}}_{y}|\). As N u is approximately 50% of N 0 , the derived gap sizes Δ 0 at each site are similar for the s- and p-wave gap functions. The fit parameters are summarized in Extended Data Table 3. For both s- and p-wave gap functions, Δ 0 increases about 2.7 times from site A to site E, while G shows much smaller changes. b, Spatial variation of the superconducting gap from one Te2 chain to the next Te2 chain. Oscillations of the coherence peak and the zero-bias LDOS are shown in the figure. Source Data