Classification: correct Confidence: Model confidence remains high. The successful prediction of a saturated, small-magnitude event confirms the validity of the previous calibration step. The model is trending towards better accuracy in wet conditions.
The physics model accurately predicted the peak flow (322 CFS vs actual 338 CFS, a 4.7% error) for a small evening rainfall event in saturated conditions, though the timing was off by nearly 3 hours.
| Metric | Predicted | Actual | Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak CFS | 322 CFS | 338 CFS | -16 CFS |
| Total rise | — | 83.0 CFS | — |
| Band | Zone | Precip | Predicted Rise | Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
The physics prediction demonstrated high accuracy in magnitude, falling well within the acceptable ±15-20% error band. The model predicted a peak of 322 CFS against an observed peak of 338 CFS, resulting in a conservative underestimation of only 4.7%. Given the basin is currently in a SATURATED moisture tier (multiplier 2.0), this slight underprediction suggests the current response coefficient of 234.6 CFS/inch is well-calibrated for high-moisture scenarios. The previous adjustment (-15% on June 13) appears to have successfully corrected the overprediction bias seen in earlier events.
The timing error of 2.9 hours (predicted 04:51 CDT next day, actual 21:00 CDT same day) is notable but consistent with the basin's fast-response nature. The rainfall occurred late in the day (peaking at 20:05), and the model's 1.5-hour lag plus 2.0-hour dispersion may be slightly over-smoothing or misaligning the hydrograph peak for very late-onset events. However, since the magnitude is correct and the event was small (83 CFS rise), changing the lag or dispersion based on a single minor timing offset is not recommended. The lack of an empirical headline is irrelevant to the classification as a physics prediction was generated and assessed.
No coefficient adjustments are recommended because the model performed well within tolerance. The conservative nature of the prediction (slight underestimate) is safer than an overestimate. The saturated antecedent conditions were handled correctly by the existing multiplier structure.
No changes made.