Load data from Berger for 6.5G

[LRRPF52]

And I agree with what you're saying, but in honesty since I haven't seen or evaluated anyone's QL program and their tweaks (I'm using Grt here), I can't categorically say their implementations are inherently bad or off - (I can say I'm basically skeptical, which is how I treat my grt results). Example, I do believe that Klem has said he uses his after having made several adjustments and views it as an info-only estimate... I don't use any of his data however. But your points here are absolutely well-taken to be sure.

As part of my career I was a senior license instructor/engineer for several full-scale reactor plant real-time operating simulators - ie, real-time complex math-model simulators of particular designs of nuclear reactor plants, the whole she-bang all the way from neutron fissions to putting 1000 MWe "electricity" on to "the grid". (I also have, as part of my career, operated, started-up from subcriticality to full power and shut-down real nuclear reactors literally hundreds of times, so I think I am knowledgeable in this area.) These simulators had a slew of full-time engineers and math-PhD's to evaluate, maintain and tweak/modify and they were very good simulator-models. But in the final analysis they were models only ("nature doesn't always read your script!!"). The real mcCoy's didn't have to act exactly as the models did. And I have 2 very explicit cases where operators followed what the "models" had told them yet missed what the "real" plant was doing... which in the case of large nuclear reactors, can be serious indeed.
So... math models are just that - models.
The real-deal data trumps anything a model might try to tell us.

btw, thanks for all the hard work you and your guys did to bring out the Grendel handbooks - they have been a great source for me, and if some may not appreciate what it took to do that, I just wanted to say that there are many of us that do.