the answer is yes and no. You know that 6 back emf pulse is a rev (for 2 pole which I dont believe castle does). The motor could count six pulses and multiply it into seconds. Does it do it? I dont know but it could. Just like it could store the magnet positions and the coil positions or hysteresis of field expansion and collapse per rpm. In fact it doesnt even need to know how to commutate if it rotates on of pulses at an increasing rate around the coils. Im guessing but i think castle limits you to low medium and high because they are adding timing that makes sense but doesnt require people to understand degrees per rpm and how the field distorts differently from 1 rpm to the next but yes its possible to add timing based on rpm and trigger position. Its just better when an esc can calculate how much to add at a given moment because the math is better than the majority of people deciding how much timing to add without the ability to see what is happening. Brushless motors combined with modern processors and experienced programmers can do amazing things. Castle knows there stuff. Ive talked to a few mfgs. Im not going to bash anyone but I got someone who really knows motor control on my first call. He also knew RC way better than i ever will. Every company can do more and i obviously want them to take advantage of all the new tech (old now) but if there arent people asking, suctioning, or buying it there arent millions of dollars waiting for a research project. You’re logic is good and it is possible but your intentions to make something better needs support. Otherwise the MFGs have to remain silent because most of them know that more can be done but dont want to get in a battle over whether or not they can be a business that keeps the people they love employed. Not that they dont love the community but we can be pretty back biting when someone decides to invest everything they have and they wont create something new. Maybe an open source esc would be a compromise they would make. I dont know.