Classification: correct Confidence: Model confidence remains medium. The system correctly identified the magnitude of a small-to-moderate rise, but timing accuracy needs monitoring. The gauge sensor failure (0.0 rain vs QPE rainfall) highlights reliance on QPE.
The model predicted a peak of 2.01 ft against an observed peak of 2.3 ft, resulting in a -12.6% error, which falls within the acceptable range for a 'correct' classification despite a significant timing discrepancy.
| Metric | Predicted | Actual | Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak height | 2.01 ft | 2.3 ft | -0.29 ft |
| Total rise | — | 1.61 ft | — |
| Band | Zone | Precip | Predicted Rise | Intensity | Moisture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Headline: No rise indicated by recent rainfall Settled outcome: None (reached None) LLM said headline was correct: None Notes: No empirical record for today's event in the provided data.
The prediction magnitude was accurate, capturing the general rise from baseline (0.69 ft) to the observed peak (2.3 ft). The QPE data showed a distinct rainfall event with ~1.15 inches in Band 1 and ~1.32 inches in Band 2, concentrated in the early afternoon. The 'broad' hydrograph shape suggests response from both bands, consistent with the rainfall distribution. The gauge sensor recorded 0.0 inches, likely due to the event being spatially localized or the sensor missing the main cell, but the QPE clearly drove the response.
However, the timing error is notable. The actual peak occurred at 19:00 on the 15th, while the prediction was for 04:50 UTC on the 16th (23:50 CDT on the 15th), a lag of nearly 5 hours. Given the ~2.7 hour seed lag and the rainfall peaking around 13:13, the actual rise started at 16:15, implying a faster response than the current lag parameter suggests for this specific intensity/duration profile. However, since the magnitude was correct and the event is classified as 'correct', no aggressive calibration changes are warranted yet. The conservative approach is to maintain current coefficients until a clear trend in over/under-prediction emerges.
No changes made.
Model confidence remains medium. The system correctly identified the magnitude of a small-to-moderate rise, but timing accuracy needs monitoring. The gauge sensor failure (0.0 rain vs QPE rainfall) highlights reliance on QPE.