On a Delaware Basin well last Thursday, we ran fiber with 5 m gauge length at 1 kHz DAS/DTS, and stage 7 indicated toe‑cluster dominant intake, while treating pressure response and post‑frac tracer returns favored the middle cluster. For those relying on fiber for real‑time coverage, which acquisition parameters or QC steps have tightened agreement with independent diagnostics (tracer, pulsed‑neutron C/O, spinner) when interpreting cluster efficiency?
When “5 m @ 1 kHz” fooled us, 10 m + 250 Hz stacking aligned tracer returns… Check cable coupling?
We had a Delaware stage where the “toe‑cluster dominant” read at 5 m/1 kHz flipped to the middle after 12 m gauge, about 1.5 s stacking, and a simple notch on pump harmonics. The one QC that moved the needle was a channel‑to‑channel coherence map during pad — anything below about 0.6 flagged poor coupling right at stage 7. Agree with @e_brooks34 on length; just make sure DAS time is synced to treating pressure before you call coverage.