Great info.
The 30:42 translates to a 18:39 5k. So that's easily the best of the bunch. What was the GPS pace for that race since you measured it slightly short?
I won't use the trail runs because it's always hard to translate those into road races.
I know the plan you're on and know it will prepare you well if you follow it. It sounds like you did/were able to. Which leads me to believe you will be a better converter.
If I use the 30:42 8k, then I get a 1:25:49 HM. If I use the 19:19 5k, then I get a 1:28:52 HM.
Under similar conditions to those other races, I would give you the following projections based on real world data from Williams and Vickers:
View attachment 634186
If your fitness is of a 1:25:49 HM runner, then roughly 54% of runners run a 3:10 or better, 75% of runners run a 3:15 or better, and 86% of runners run a 3:20 or better.
If your fitness is of a 1:28:52 HM runner, then roughly 24% of runners run a 3:10 or better, 45% of runners run a 3:15 or better, and 65% of runners run a 3:20 or better.
But these values assume equal weather conditions, and currently it's projected to be slightly hot. I would give it a +1.5 to the VDOT value. That would be a heat adjusted 1:27:50 and 1:31:15. So that would be:
View attachment 634190
If your fitness is of a 1:27:50 HM runner, then roughly 30% of runners run a 3:10 or better, 54% of runners run a 3:15 or better, and 70% of runners run a 3:20 or better.
If your fitness is of a 1:31:15 HM runner, then roughly 6% of runners run a 3:10 or better, 22% of runners run a 3:15 or better, and 41% of runners run a 3:20 or better.
From my data, those who use a plan like the one you did, tend to be better converters than the general population. So using my own data set, I would say a 50% chance of 3:08 if you're truly a 1:27:50 HM runner in the heat, and a 50% chance of 3:15:36 if you're truly a 1:31:15 runner in the heat.
I would actually recommend the opposite, but it comes down to the level of risk you want to accept. When going through pacing choices, I typically offer two options. Something like:
Option A - aggressive (aim for 3:10)
25% chance of 3:10
75% chance of 3:25
Option B - conservative (aim for 3:16)
50% chance of 3:16
50% chance of 3:18
Is the risk of a potential 3:10 worth the chance that you completely miss the BQ by finishing in 3:25. Or is it more valuable to you to hit that bare minimum goal of a 3:15?
If it were me, I'd recommend the opposite strategy. Instead of aiming for 3:10, and then adjusting slower if you have to. I'd aim for 3:15 through say 16-17 miles or so. If you can pick up the pace at Mile 17, then you know you probably could have gone faster from the start. But then with your picked up pace, you'd still gain 11 second per mile after that which is nearly 2 min of time after 9-10 more miles. That would give you a 3:13ish finish. But if the reverse happens and you attempt to pick up the pace at Mile 17 and feel like you can't, then try and maintain. But be thankful in post-run review that if you had gone for 3:10 you would have likely blown up even worse than where-ever you finish.
But that's my mindset in terms of pacing decisions given where your data is and there's definitely other mindsets for approaching it.
