min 31:17. Maybe because in KQ5 Q X IP has a greater proportion of stronger hands relative to the counterpart of 963 6 7 hhh where IP will have less 6x and fh, and is more capped , having a tougher time w his range facing a shove. Whereas in KQ5 Q J he can get induced to raise some Kx or weak Q and random spazzes or even raise for value a weaker hand than top of your range. For instance if he hit QJ and raises u for value after u bet small w KK, u might be able to extract that extra value than going for POT and either getting called or fold out other hands he has that could either call or bluff raise if OOP opts for the small size.
I am not entirely sure, just especulating w potential reasons for it and listen to other opinions

thats a more elegant way to explain it :)

22 minutes board 2a, A river. 99 without a K/T is shoving here? Seems like an anomaly, understand we don't show up with 99 here in the given line often but weird to see it shoving when we do. You also skipped the middle river on this particular sequence. Believe it was the board pair.

On the kq5-q board, did you only give BB the 25% sizing? Curious if given the option specifically on the if a larger option is used at a high enough frequency to matter here as I'm not sure our entire range benefits from forcing all of IP's AAxx to continue

KQ5-A board would be very curious to see how much the equity distribution changes between the 5 board pair and the K when OP bets larger on turn. From a theoretical standpoint half pot seems optimal, but in practice I find a lot of players don't size down after check raising if they are going to continue barreling, and I'd imagine there would be a direct correlation between the size of the bet and the "irreleventness" of the river pair.

Also your graphs continue to not get enough credit. These have been, still are, and will be for some time the easiest way to digest monker sims visually. Love it.