So it sounds like you're implying that by adding in a 0 knock row, you would shape your lambda curve, vs RPM, for what you want to see during a WOT pull.  I can't see how else having a 0 knock row, with only RPM on the other axis, makes sense any other way.

Again, that seems like an awfully odd way to utilize a protection table. O_o

Too many acronyms.... can you break that down a little more?

What happens if you were to run lambda>1 in this map to squeeze out better economy?

Thanks phila_dot, I do remember that thread along with this one.

 http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=530.15

I forgot about it...

Yes, keep closed loop possible, but still allowing for 1.1 lambda in certain scenarios is a worthy goal.

KFLAMKR - above
KFLAMKRL - stock
LAMFA - stock as it is useless to control lambda
KFLBTS (screenshot attached both in ECU format and AFR view of it):

1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00
1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00
1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   0.98
1.00   0.98   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   0.96
1.00   0.97   0.98   0.98   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   0.98   0.94
1.00   0.96   0.96   0.96   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   1.00   0.98   0.96   0.95   0.91
1.00   0.96   0.96   0.96   0.98   0.98   0.98   0.98   0.98   0.98   0.98   0.98   0.97   0.95   0.94   0.89
1.00   0.96   0.95   0.96   0.97   0.98   0.98   0.98   0.98   0.98   0.97   0.96   0.96   0.94   0.91   0.88
1.00   0.95   0.95   0.96   0.97   0.98   0.98   0.98   0.98   0.94   0.93   0.93   0.93   0.92   0.88   0.84
1.00   0.95   0.94   0.95   0.96   0.98   0.98   0.98   0.90   0.86   0.85   0.84   0.83   0.81   0.80   0.79
1.00   0.94   0.93   0.94   0.95   0.97   0.97   0.89   0.84   0.80   0.79   0.78   0.77   0.77   0.76   0.75
1.00   0.91   0.91   0.91   0.94   0.95   0.89   0.83   0.80   0.78   0.77   0.76   0.75   0.75   0.74   0.74

And remember, for this to work both CWLAMFAW bit0 must be set to 0 and TABGBTS must be set to semthing much higher than 500C. I have it at 920C, 20-30 degrees before ATR system kicks in (EGT sensors trigger), checked with logs as my load/maf is exactly spot on and reflects real life values.

With my limited experience, its hard to believe that Bosch doesn't have something, somewhere to allow closed loop lambda>1. As flexible as Me7 is? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure everybody has searched,... that's just nuts.

If I understand correctly, open loop dictates lowest lambda available is used? So in this instance anyway, knock sensors would have no effect on AFR. Would it be possible to run open loop at low loads with higher lambda via Ricks post in the above thread mentioned, then switch to closed loop after certain load to take full advantage of KR tuning?

err...  http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=141.msg14594#msg14594

I am confused, are you editing KFLAMKR or KFLAMKRL?

Its been jumped back and forth for the entire discussion both here and on other related threads.  What map are you editing?  Because the RL map you posted is for sure edited from what I have with stock mbox.