I won't rely on the QuickLoad outputs as gospel, but the math behind it is beyond mere assumptions; the formulas it uses are based on empirical research. Having coded software simulations of physical processes myself, I'm aware they can be embarrassingly inaccurate, but I'm also aware they can provide insights that empirical research can be slower to highlight.
It wasn't until I compared QL's traces to that from RSI that it dawned on me that RSI's traces showed it's not possible for the burn to have been completed near peak pressure, as I outlined above. Once the burn is complete, the pressure trace will be concave (as viewed from "above" the curve). Instead, it is convex over half the trace.
