This is good work, in my opinion Richard, thanks for posting this summary.
I think you'll be lucky to get any reply from Enrique though, because like any professional writing about things potentially affecting their ongoing careers, there seems not many willing to risk their professional validity being questioned in public.
But that shouldn't put us / you off, and it obviously hasn't put you off. Good effort, I hope you keep up the good work.
if you are interested to know how I would comment on your information in Enrique's position, if he was inclined to comment, since I have no career to lose, but I do have a little PhD candidate research experience, it is this:
We have to qualify all conclusions intended to predict future drawn from data, with related physical models.
You are predicting future with known data, which is a perfectly fine thing to do, it is what mathematically trained professionals would call interpolation of the data.
But interpolation is known to be highly error prone, because the data of continued measurements often deviates in practice, from what researchers might expect, from whichever mathematical or physical models they've used to "fit" the data to, to draw their conclusions.
That doesn't mean I think you are wrong, you could be right, but it would be easier for us to see you are right, if you showed or explained the physical models you might be using to fit to the data.
For example, your use of "baked in" terminology, in the case of your data, indicates you believe it supports your argument that there is an amount of overshoot, which is estimateable from the data.
To show this effectively, you would need to inform us of a physical model that mimics the action you describe, that you might see at work in the data.
You might agree that the most important practical measure of damage, is the effect on life, that we are seeing, for example the effects on coral, and fish stocks, upon which many other forms of life including us, depend.
During covid, which Enrique refers to, was a unique opportunity to study the effects of cessation of industrial activity on those things.
His point is that we did, and we saw there was recovery in news articles at the time, but we learned nothing from that, because we re-commenced industry, in a way that made up for lost time doing the work of continued destruction.
My own analysis indicates this had to be expected, because by my anaysis, the damage done itself is energy lost from Earth, and the mechanism we use to consistently remove the energy from Earth, is money issued as debt, with the total amount of debt indicating directly the amount of energy lost from Earth.
Logically, by that model, ceasing the creation of debt, ceases the loss of life; recommencing creation of debt recommences loss of life.
So hopefully we can see financial debt translates to loss of life, which is energy lost from Earth, when all is said and done.
I would suggest you need to show similar mathematical or physical relationships between the behavior you see in your data, and the behaviors of things we see happening, to give confidence in your conclusions of the baked-in effect you are describing.
For example, if you predict continued temperature rise, after removal of the physical mechanism believed to be increasing say the insulation around a water boiler, with all other things unchanged, what is the physical mechanism driving the continued rise in temperature? Is there something in Earth, with high thermal constant, which is being heated to a higher temperature than the thing we measure (the air), that might store the higher temperature within it for years to come, in a way that its higher stored temperature continues to conduct to the air, raising the air temperature for years afterwards? If so, what is this mechanism of latent heat storage?
In the case of an electric cooker, of the kind that has heavy iron platter cooking ement, if we started off from cold, turning on the power to the heating element, measuring the temperature of the platter, the platter temperature typically lags and even overshoots the power input to the platter, after the power is removed from the element, the platter temperature can continue to rise many degrees, for a minute or more after the power is switched off.
In the case of the platter, the mechanism heated to higher temperature than can be measured on the top surface, is the volume of metal below the surface.
What would that mechanism be in Earth?
If you could describe that, this would help us validate your conclusion of ongoing change somehow being "baked in".