Classification: partial Confidence: The model shows consistent accuracy in magnitude for recent small events but struggles with timing. The calibration trajectory is positive for magnitude, but lag tuning is needed to improve temporal alignment.
The physics model correctly identified the direction of the rise (underestimating peak by 22.6%) but exhibited a significant 5.9-hour timing error, classifying the event as partial.
| Metric | Predicted | Actual | Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak CFS | 7 CFS | 9 CFS | -2 CFS |
| Total rise | — | 2.9 CFS | — |
| Band | Zone | Precip | Predicted Rise | Intensity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
The physics model predicted a peak of 6.8 CFS compared to an actual peak of 8.85 CFS, resulting in a magnitude underestimation of approximately 22.6%. While this error exceeds the 15-20% threshold for a 'correct' classification, the direction was accurate. The timing error is substantial, with the predicted peak arriving 5.9 hours after the actual peak. Given the small basin size (156 km²) and steep topography, the response should be faster. The rainfall occurred late in the day (19:05-21:05 UTC / 14:05-16:05 local), and the actual peak occurred at 18:00 local time (23:00 UTC), suggesting the model's lag parameter may be too long for this specific storm profile, or the antecedent moisture multiplier was insufficient to account for the quick response.
| Band | Change | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | +10% | Underpredicted peak flow by 22.6%. A conservative +10% adjustment brings the coefficient closer to observed response without overcorrecting. |