Boon, the model computes only weight which is highly predictable from modeled consumption. What isn't as predictable is the length at weight which is highly variable. It all depends (it would seem) on the individual fish which tend to vary relative to peers. Unfortunately, I am not able to answer the question because of this variability of Length at Weight among individuals. In addition to chubby and short vs thin and long at weight, recent individual consumption can make a big difference in RW. An LMB can only grow so fast in length but recent consumption that exceeds what is needed to support that length increment can substantially boost RW even if only temporarily.
I am kind of confused at this thought, maybe you can shed a little more light on what you are trying to convey.
From my personal experience, also in Kansas with a much higher sampling rate, probably closer to 50% Weight is highly unpredictable. My LMB currently vary from 1.3# to 2.1#, Large spread among 13 month old fish. The length (even though a large range) is pretty predictable vs the weight of fish. A 12" fish in my pond is right around 1.3# where as a 15" fish is closer to 2.1# If I catch a fish and weigh it, I could guess within a 1/4" of how long it is The guestiment has been off a few times, but its pretty close. Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it sounds backwards
