Classification: partial Confidence: Model confidence in Band 1 remains medium due to persistent QPE-gauge discrepancies. The model is failing to predict timing for near-gauge events when gauge data is missing/zero, defaulting to headwaters signals. This is a structural data issue rather than a coefficient issue.
The model underestimated a small, sharp 0.42 ft rise caused by late-afternoon rainfall in Band 1 and 2, predicting only a minor rise driven by Band 5 due to significant QPE-gauge data conflicts in Band 1.
| Metric | Predicted | Actual | Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak height | 2.46 ft | 2.86 ft | -0.40 ft |
| Total rise | — | 0.42 ft | — |
| Band | Precip | Predicted Rise | Intensity | Moisture |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 0.07" | 0.02 ft | LIGHT | WET |
Headline: ~10% chance of rising to LOW in the next 6–12 h. Experimental. Settled outcome: None (reached None) LLM said headline was correct: None Notes: Empirical headline predicted ~10% chance of LOW tier. Actual peak was 2.86 ft, which is below the LOW threshold of 3.0 ft. The headline was technically correct in predicting no significant rise to higher tiers, though the event did produce a measurable rise.
The prediction yielded a peak of 2.46 ft against an actual peak of 2.86 ft, resulting in a -14% magnitude error. While this error falls within the ±15% threshold for 'correct' classification, the timing error is extreme (~29 hours), and the physical mechanism of the rise was misidentified. The actual rise was sharp and occurred at midnight, driven by precipitation in Band 1 (0.78" total) and Band 2 that began around 11:12 AM UTC. The model largely ignored Band 1 despite significant QPE, likely due to recent calibration adjustments that were overly conservative or because the gauge recorded 0" precipitation (ground truth discrepancy). Instead, the model predicted a rise based on Band 5, which had negligible rainfall (0.07") and arrived much later. This represents a failure to capture the near-gauge response dynamics when QPE and gauge data diverge.
The hydrograph shape was 'sharp', indicating a near-gauge origin (Bands 1-2), yet the model attributed the response to headwaters (Band 5). This suggests the current Band 1 coefficient (3.673) combined with the WET moisture multiplier (1.5) should have produced a larger contribution if the QPE in Band 1 had been fully trusted. However, given the gauge showed 0" rain, the model's hesitation is understandable but led to a misclassification of the event's timing and source. The event was small but distinct, and the model's reliance on the distant, negligible Band 5 signal rather than the proximate Band 1/2 signal indicates a need for better handling of 'invisible' near-gauge bursts where QPE indicates rain but gauge does not.
No coefficient adjustments are recommended at this time because the rainfall amounts in Bands 1 and 2 were modest and the gauge ground-truth was zero. Adjusting coefficients based on QPE-only signals when ground truth is absent carries high risk of overfitting. The primary issue is data availability/discrepancy rather than coefficient error. The model correctly identified a wet condition but failed to leverage the QPE signal in Band 1 due to the zero gauge reading. This is a known limitation noted in the Band 1 calibration history.
No changes made.
Model confidence in Band 1 remains medium due to persistent QPE-gauge discrepancies. The model is failing to predict timing for near-gauge events when gauge data is missing/zero, defaulting to headwaters signals. This is a structural data issue rather than a coefficient issue.