[ke88y]

I'll literally repeat myself, since I think the point was abundantly clear:

>> That only makes sense if there's strong correlation between the first 50% of a charge and the second 50% of a charge, but NOT an equally strong correlation between the previous charge cycle and the current charge cycle.

But "That", I mean using optimistic estimates at the beginning of a charge cycle but a model based on historical driving about half way through a charge cycle.

There's no reason, prime facie, that future discharge rate should be better-correlated intra-charge than inter-charge, especially for recent charges, and especially if you have lots of historical charge/discharge cycle data for both the machine, the geographic area, and the individual driver.

The question is not "why not be perfect". The question is "why not do inter-charge forecasting the same way you do intra-charge forecasting".