**8. Conclusions**

Of the three time-steps considered, 3 min was used because it gave the best performance for the example network and consumption. Extensive care was taken to construct this realistic example, for which the flow-dependent LCF and LVF7 controllers were found to have the same overall performance. However, since LVF7 was more complicated, LCF Was preferable, and should be considered as the controller of choice.

The performance of the LVF controller relative to LCF is expected to be better when:


Unless the factors listed above are particularly favourable, the flow-dependent controller, which does not require modelling the future (LCF here), is an adequate choice with stochastic consumption, even though it may not perform as well as the controller that requires modelling the future (LVF here). This remains true even in the case where it is preferable or necessary to replace the sensitivity with a dimension-less tunable parameter [23].

Further research can address ways to improve controllers that model the future.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, P.P. and E.C.; methodology, E.C.; software, E.C.; validation, E.C.; formal analysis, P.P.; investigation, P.P. and E.C.; resources, E.C.; data curation, E.C.; writing—original draft preparation, P.P.; writing—review and editing, P.P. and E.C.; visualization, P.P. and E.C.; supervision, P.P.; project administration, P.P. and E.C.; funding acquisition, P.P. and E.C.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
