Classification: partial Confidence: Model confidence in Bands 4 and 5 remains high. Confidence in Bands 1 and 2 is medium but needs reinforcement due to recurring gauge data discrepancies. The model is consistently underestimating events with high Band 1/2 QPE but low gauge precipitation.
The model significantly underestimated the peak stage (-11% magnitude error) and failed to predict the rapid near-gauge response timing, likely due to missing Band 1 precipitation inputs which showed high volume in QPE but zero in gauge records.
| Metric | Predicted | Actual | Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak height | 3.07 ft | 3.45 ft | -0.38 ft |
| Total rise | — | 1.39 ft | — |
| Band | Precip | Predicted Rise | Intensity | Moisture |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 0.79" | 0.43 ft | MODERATE | WET |
| 5 | 0.53" | 0.24 ft | MODERATE | WET |
Headline: No rise indicated by recent rainfall Settled outcome: None (reached None) LLM said headline was correct: None Notes: The empirical headline 'No rise indicated by recent rainfall' was generated at 04:18 UTC on July 13. The actual peak occurred at 18:15 on July 12. The empirical model looks at recent rainfall, and by July 13 04:18, the event had passed. The headline likely referred to the immediate future, predicting no further rise, which is technically correct as the peak had already passed. However, it failed to predict the event that occurred the previous day. Given the lag in empirical assessment vs event time, this is inconclusive for calibration but suggests the empirical model needs faster QPE integration.
The event featured a 1.39 ft rise, peaking at 3.45 ft, driven primarily by rainfall in Bands 4 and 5 according to the model's prediction. However, the actual hydrograph showed a broad rise starting at 14:45 local time, with a peak at 18:15. The model predicted a peak of 3.07 ft, occurring 5.6 hours later than the actual peak. While the magnitude error of -11% is technically within the 'correct' threshold defined in some contexts, the combination of a missed early rise component and the reliance solely on distant headwaters bands (4 and 5) suggests the model missed a significant near-gauge contribution.
The QPE data shows substantial rainfall in Band 1 (1.42" peak, ~1.89" in Band 2) during the critical afternoon hours, yet the gauge recorded 0" precipitation. This discrepancy mirrors the 'invisible near-gauge burst' issue noted in previous calibrations. The hydrograph shape was broad, indicating a mix of near-gauge and headwaters input, but the model only accounted for the headwaters. The 5.6-hour timing error suggests the model was too slow to react to the near-gauge inputs that likely existed despite the gauge failure.
Given the significant timing error and the consistent pattern of the model underestimating events when Band 1 QPE is high but gauge data is null, a partial classification is appropriate. The model needs to increase sensitivity to Band 1 and Band 2 QPE to capture these 'gauge-blind' near-gauge events.
| Band | Change | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | +15% | QPE showed 1.42" in Band 1 during peak rise, but gauge recorded 0". Model ignored this potential near-gauge driver, contributing to timing and magnitude underestimation. Increasing sensitivity to capture future invisible near-gauge bursts. |
| 2 | +10% | Band 2 QPE (1.89") also showed significant volume. The broad rise shape suggests some contribution from intermediate bands. Small increase to account for combined near-to-mid watershed runoff on wet soil. |
Model confidence in Bands 4 and 5 remains high. Confidence in Bands 1 and 2 is medium but needs reinforcement due to recurring gauge data discrepancies. The model is consistently underestimating events with high Band 1/2 QPE but low gauge precipitation.