nyet's previous discussions have highlighted how KFLF / FKKVS are partially related, and thus the only way to maintain consistency is to pick one fueling repair methodology and exclusively change that map.  were you not to follow this, he believes that you'd run into a problem where changing one map requires changing the other map due to map-to-map co-interactions.  i'm writing this just to clarify;  i believe he is correct and i also think KFLF is the map to be selected.

this is because of the linear relationship we know:  fuel output = krkte * load + tvub       in other words, tvub should be sufficient to solve idle problems and if load is correctly scaled, krkte should handle the primary function as an accelerator pump, thus making WOT sufficiently fueled.  that means, if you use the LTFT centering method, your idle and WOT (open-loop) should be clean enough, leaving only part-throttle corrections necessary as would be done in KFLF...

(just some errata for those interested in the fine-tuning of me7...)    on this subject, i'm working on a matlab / excel process which will take raw log data and return the correctly interpolated KFLF correction table based on a mathematical model.  obviously you'd have to write that table, reflash the car, and again recenter TVUB and KRKTE.  this would be rinse, repeated, until fuel corrections are very low <generally speaking>, as can be seen by minimal STFT corrections during logging.

(just some errata for those interested in the fine-tuning of me7...)    on this subject, i'm working on a matlab / excel process which will take raw log data and return the correctly interpolated KFLF correction table based on a mathematical model.  obviously you'd have to write that table, reflash the car, and again recenter TVUB and KRKTE.  this would be rinse, repeated, until fuel corrections are very low <generally speaking>, as can be seen by minimal STFT corrections during logging.