In my, admittedly maybe lacking, understanding amortization doesn't really work that way. "Amortized worst case" (for example) means that you can still bound the worst case[1], but it's just not necessarily going to be a very accurate bound. Obviously, amortized complexity doesn't tell you "<X ms" right off the bat since it deals in abstract "operations", but if you have known worst case bounds for all the "operations", then an amortized bound for a given operation will give you something equivalent to "<X ms".
[1] I mean, it's a common proof technique to actually have a non-negative cost function (+ invariant) and postulate/derive an upper bound on that, so... what gives? What's your reasoning here?
No. The entire premise of amortized analysis is to get a more optimistic "eventually O" number. "Eventually" is not good enough for real time. Yes you can get a real hard worst-case number, but that's a different analysis from amortized analysis. Unless all of your amortized operations are happening between deadlines, it's useless--worse, dangerous--for safety. And amortized analysis is almost never used that way. You don't have language run-times that reinitialize between every deadline.
I somehow confused myself by thinking of it in terms of one of the proof techniques for amortized worst case where you derive a fixed upper bound for any "n". Of course this is a much stronger property than needed.
In my, admittedly maybe lacking, understanding amortization doesn't really work that way. "Amortized worst case" (for example) means that you can still bound the worst case[1], but it's just not necessarily going to be a very accurate bound. Obviously, amortized complexity doesn't tell you "<X ms" right off the bat since it deals in abstract "operations", but if you have known worst case bounds for all the "operations", then an amortized bound for a given operation will give you something equivalent to "<X ms".
[1] I mean, it's a common proof technique to actually have a non-negative cost function (+ invariant) and postulate/derive an upper bound on that, so... what gives? What's your reasoning here?