Just graph it, OR look at the chart vs time and see the trend of STFT vs MAF period if the graphs are not being populated with enough data. Stay away from SAE PID's whenever possible to get faster polling rates.
You can look at sections of the chart like from 140-160u period and see that you can add 5% there. Then look at your transfer and add 5% to the cells that closest represent that section. 157.6- 139.5 is essentially the same thing as 160-140u.
When looking at the transfer in the editor, you should be looking at it in vertical split view, just like some other tables are easier to view in 3d view.
Currently you have four cells that define this section of the transfer. Also currently From 350u-150u its seems to define the most "bent" part of the curve. Above that and below that are much closer to straight lines. You need more points to define a good curve, compared to defining a line. This is where moving your defined period values can be optimized. More resolution for parts of the transfer that needs it.
Three out of the four logs you posted show nearly the same trend. The fourth your fuel trims seems to come in a little slow, I wouldn't look too much into it.
Knock removed.PNG
lesstiming retard.PNG
Knock retard off.PNG
As an example of wasted resolution, from the top of your MAF transfer, a linear trend line fits better than a power trend line. An exponential trend line is only 1% better than a linear, and once things are smoothed, a linear may actually fit better. The fact that these are all with in 2% R^2 is all that really matters, and it's all you need to know to decide if you want more or less period points defining that part of the transfer.
Top of MAF linear vs power.PNG
Compare that to the middle of the transfer where R^2 can be 15-20% different between a linear trend and exponential trend. This is where you need the most cells to define the transfer the best.
Middle of MAF linear vs exponential.PNG