Classification: correct Confidence: Model confidence remains stable. The accurate prediction of peak magnitude for a low-volume, wet-ground event reinforces current coefficients for Bands 4 and 5. Timing discrepancies persist but are not sufficient to justify calibration changes without magnitude errors.
The model correctly predicted the peak stage within 7.3% accuracy for a low-magnitude event driven by minimal headwaters rainfall, despite a significant timing error caused by the early rise start.
| Metric | Predicted | Actual | Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak height | 2.8 ft | 3.02 ft | -0.22 ft |
| Total rise | — | 0.28 ft | — |
| Band | Precip | Predicted Rise | Intensity | Moisture |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 0.21" | 0.07 ft | LIGHT | WET |
| 5 | 0.30" | 0.13 ft | MODERATE | WET |
The prediction engine generated a forecast of 2.8 ft, while the actual peak was 3.02 ft, resulting in a -7.3% error. This falls well within the ±15-20% threshold for a 'correct' classification, particularly given the low total rainfall volumes (cumulative QPE < 0.4" per band). The event was characterized by a sharp, short-duration rise (0.28 ft in 1 hour) starting immediately at midnight, which aligns with the gauge precipitation of 0" but suggests either very rapid runoff from wet soils or unmeasured near-gauge precipitation. The hydrograph shape was sharp, typically indicative of Band 1 influence, yet QPE in Band 1 was negligible until late afternoon. This discrepancy is noted, but the peak magnitude prediction remains accurate.
The timing error of ~24 hours is significant but reflects the model's lag assumptions (Band 4/5 inputs predicted arrival +0.4hr relative to prediction base) versus the observed immediate rise. Since the rise was small and the peak magnitude was captured accurately, no coefficient adjustments are warranted. Adjusting coefficients based on timing discrepancies in low-volume events risks overfitting. The antecedent moisture conditions (WET) were likely responsible for the efficient runoff despite minimal rainfall inputs.
No changes are recommended for moisture or intensity tiers as the response was consistent with wet-ground expectations. The lack of an empirical forecast headline is noted; the physics model performed adequately on its own for this minor event.
No changes made.
Model confidence remains stable. The accurate prediction of peak magnitude for a low-volume, wet-ground event reinforces current coefficients for Bands 4 and 5. Timing discrepancies persist but are not sufficient to justify calibration changes without magnitude errors.