**Appendix A**

**'- 00,\*('0#%' 0 0(%(0-"\*%0"%(0%0 0#%'0'0(00#''0-0(0\*'&0 0(0 00\*%)%0#%"''0"%0 0"%0#''0("0,\*(%\* '- 0\* (" 0 0'0'0 0,#0+%0#%\*((" '0 0(%(" '0%0'(0-0(0"%(0 +('00',\*(%\* '.!'" 0#%'0#0(%(" '0"%0#0 0#%\*((" ' 00%\$\*'('0"%0"0,\*(" 0%0#''0 0 "+0+0+(0"%0(0%'\*('0 +(0'- "(%+('0 0'%\* '0'0\*#(0+)0(0%'\*('0 0 0 "+00#%"''0 00#%"'' 0'0(%0"%0(0 0%'\*('0"%0"%0 "(%0,\*(" 0%"\* 0 0%(0-"\*%0#%"'' 0"0%0 ' %'\*('## -0 "0-"\*0+ (0("0%(\*% 0("0(0\*'%/0 0
 0(0\* (" 0'0,(0(0 "0'0%(\*% 0("0(0\*'% 0**

**Figure A2.** Example input file. Note: Two different model files are changed for the permutations, and a single recursive step is defined. The algorithm analysis considers two output parameters with different "weight" and "score\_step" values.

**Figure A3.** Case study input file.

**Figure A4.** The output of the EDSS. Note: In the first round of simulations (i.e., steps of 0.1 m3/s), 0.6 m3/s flow had the best score. In the second round of simulations (i.e., steps of 0.01 m3/s around 0.6 m3/s), 0.55 m3/s flow had the best score.
