I have quite a difference between measured and targeted AFR?

Thanks for the great video. I just realised that I have quite a difference between the measured AFR which is 12.0.

My Stoich AFR is 14.6, and the value that I have added in the PE table is 1.344 which targets AFR of 10.8.

So the questions is why do I have the difference? And how to make the two values as close as possible?

Likely a calibration or scaling isn't correct (MAF, Map Sensor Scaling, Injector Characterization, etc).

You haven't provided enough information to really help you.

Why don't you tell us what Engine/ECU/Reflash Software you are using?

Also, tell us what has been modified hardware-wise from the stock engine (Intake, Cams, Injectors, Sensors, Exhaust, Fuel System).

5.7L Toyota Tundra, using hp tuners on OEM ECU.

LT headers, the rest are bone stock. So far I have only changed the PE EQ ratio table to command an AFR of around 12.

I have left the spark advance tables unchanged. Apparently, the long term fuel trims are almost within 5% ranges. I appreciate if you could let me know what would be the next steps to take. Thanks.

It sounds some of the Toyota VE tables haven't been made available yet in HP Tuners. I see someone reporting that the PE (Performance Enrichment?) commanded AFR isn't matching the measured AFR. https://forum.hptuners.com/showthread.php?77610-Toyota-Tacoma-VE-Table

I also saw (in the GM section) that on some ECUs there are parameters that prevent PE from activating above a certain MAP and/or Throttle Position.

I think the HP Tuners Forum might be a good resource for you on this issue. https://forum.hptuners.com/forumdisplay.php?88-Toyota

The Tundra is a relatively new release from HP Tuners and I'd suspect David is correct and the definition isn't complete. If you can't manipulate the VE/MAF inputs then you have no easy option but to fudge the numbers in your PE table to get what you actually want. Not a very elegant solution but sometimes you have limited choices.