I do not see any of the algorithms giving me a probably of risk of DCI, but they give me enough information that - If I am not lying to myself about my own health - I would make an "informed decision" (also known as a SWAG) about the risk of DCS. That is all we should ever take away from a computer or planning software.
I see an issue in the production of "numbers" from a computer program. Let me try a simpler analogy:
The temperature is forecast to go from 95 to 100 over a two hour period. What is the probability of a heat injury, and how severe?
You simply cannot take that at face value, because there are so many more factors.
Conditions - glaring sun, or in shade, windy, breezy, still, dry heat, moist heat?
Person - skinny, fat, hydrated, not hydrated, fit, not fit, young, middle-aged, older, wearing a hat, not wearing a hat, clothing?
Activity - digging a ditch, lifting weight, lying down, barbecue, running, walking?
Health - organs, pulmonary, heart, etc.
Therefore, my statement that a SWAG based on input is what deco is. No computer, no planner *gives* safety - just some numbers that are sometimes based on empirical data that someone else manipulated into a model . . . but the model is "good" over a given range.