EGT values are real, I'm using the RS6 EGT sensors.

What could cause (high injector ms/ low DC) at lower rpms? My injector logs look so different then Flyboy

Have you made more changes to your bin since you sent me one?

So if modelled EGTs are close to real than IMHO BTS should be retuned as 800*C is just to early for such big intervention. The other thing which should be done is to try to readjust (I mean advance) timing and check what will happen.

I do not think so as ECU do not know it is using wideband EGT sensors IMHO (or I just missed the fact ATR was adjusted). Still 800*C is too early to drop AFRs below 11:1 IMHO.

If narrowband EGTs are so bad maybe it would be better for those who still have them to deactivate ATR but make BTS over reactive for really high temperatures (like setting to FBSTABGM to > 1). Still I would try to log all fueling request to find what is going on before taking decision what should be done. If in fact it is due to KFLBTS I would try setting it to more "sane" values and use FBSTABGM to alter enrichment according to EGT if you really need TABGBTS set to relatively low (and safe) value.

1.  Some more minor adjustment to LDRXN, raised a little at the start to try and get requested to match actual.
2.  Bumped up timing a fair amount (KFZW and KFZW2)
3.  Increased TABGBTS to 800C.
4.  Ambients temps were a good bit cooler this evening 66F, versus the 76-82F it's been recently.

Here's AFR:



Here's the Nef-13 data log.

So it seems FlyboyS4's changes dropped EGT a bit (due to advanced timing I suppose).
Flyboy, how is your FBSTABGM set now?
Perhaps the proper solution is to leave KFLBTS as it is but scale it by FBSTABGM (set to < 1 for 800-850 or even wider range of temperatures)?

EDIT:
It all depends on how you set your fuelling. If BTS is used purely as last resort component protection it could be left even at lambda 0.7 (0.75 might be better if ATR is still used, because otherwise ATR will be unable to do anything). In this situation if you use KR based fuelling it might be wise to set it to lambda ~0.8 for such high load and high engine speed areas (I would not set to anything higher than 0.85 for lower engine speeds and no ignition advance correction).

I understand it might be questionable to tell people to change FBSTABGM in Stage1 tune but as we already changed TABGBTS IMHO we should tune BTS to our needs fully.
So what is FBSTABGM? FBSTABGM is a map (4x1) which is used to scale KFLBTS enrichment according to modelled EGT temperature.
So you will find ECU requests lambda values set in KFLBTS only if for given modelled EGT FBSTABGM is set to 1. If its value is lower or value read from the map is lower due to interpolation requested lambda will be higher. If FBSTABGM values are > 1 requested lambda is lower.
For example:
ECU would not use KFLBTS enrichment up to 800*C despite having TABGBTS set lower. Between 800 and 850*C there will be slight enrichment depending on exact modelled EGT. At 850*C it would use exactly half of value in KFLBTS, so if for given load/engine speed KFLBTS has value of 0.8 (lambda) it will request 1-((1-0.80)*0.5) = 0.9. Between 850 and 900*C enrichment will be scaled between 0.5 and 1 (for 900*C it will use exact KFLBTS values) and above 900*C enrichment will be bigger than KFLBTS values (from 950*C it will be 1.25*KFLBTS value, so for KFLBTS value of 0.8 it would request 1-((1-0.80)*1.25) = 0.7).

That is why I opted to use leaner values in KFLBTS and enrich further basing on modelled EGT temperature as you found it is not far from real EGT. FBSTABGM is IMHO good to use this approach.

EDIT:
I am still asking if we are sure it is in fact BTS enrichment. If I were you I would double check ATR and KR enrichments.
Have you logged all lambda requested values? Could you plot them?

What I have logged is contained in the data file linked above, I can add more variables if there are specific ones needed in addition to what I am already logging.