I don't see a question, but perused your diary... plants look a bit off so i assume it's about that.
here's what i'd suggest in a soilless grow. Keep it simple until you get consistent results, then worry about playing mad scientist with changing formulas at this stage or that... you may find a lot of that is just self-absorbed and meaningless, lol. the plant does 95% of everything. There's very litte we can do beyond providign light, water and nutrients in proper proportions and concentrations. (both ratio and concentration are equally importnt for fertilization)
Soilles is simple.. well-balanced feed somewhere between 1.3-1.5 and fertilize every irrigation with at least 10% runoff (waste water, don't let it sit in it... fine for plants outside not in pots or toss it down a drain).
do a weighted average of your NPK values based on dose and they should be somewhere near 8:8:15 ratio. This wont vary much strain to strain. The concentration you want that at will... The plant's metabolism is based on factors liek how much light it receives, temps, RH%, et al... but the ratios don't change too much unless the water used is adding something. Water will have some mg, ca et al unless you use RO water or otherwise filtered. So, Ca, Mg and S will vary a bit more.
you can use an online calculater to find the resulting ppms of what you feed... per molecule.. finer resolution, at least initially, can help hammer out a good formual.
120-140 N -- some plants can use more or less.. even in bloom i find 110-120 does not cause any toxicities, so it's obviously being metabolized by plant in absence of toxicity.
P - i've had a come to jesus moment about P .. i never had issues but lower levels of p result in a plant that is also more susceptible to disease. Amping up to 60ppm has seemed to cause all my problems to dissipate from recent grows over last 2 years.. so at least 60ppm P.
K - 190-200ish.
if you are 8-8-15 label ratio (US not EU, as p and k values on label differ there, i think? at least one does), then you are looking at these values when in the 1.3-1.5EC range.. mathematical certainty.
Ca - 100+
Mg - 80+
i have very hard water and that's what i used... i recently started using water from softener, which should contain less ca/mg, and so far i haven't needed to tweak my formula in regard to either... Mg is tricky, because symptoms don't show up until 4-6 weeks after the deficiency began in the plant... a lagging visual indicator. I have a calendar makring the week i need to look for interveinal chlorosis and spots from Mg def. but so far, no need to bump Ca and i definitely lost some ppms from the very hard tap water i used previously.
S - 100+ / 110+? -- this one i have less confidence in .
Some variation is possible.. like i said not all water is the same. But, this will get you in a small ballpark. work combinations of your products to get near that 8-8-15 ratio or use the manic botanix online fertilizer ppm calculator to look a bit closer at each component. I can tell you through experience that tracking this stuff shorted the feeding learning curve immensely. I rarely have any visible symptoms except a few plants that clearly have ssome genetic defects visible otherwise.
i do have to give a bit less N in bloom. In my experience the same upper thresholds for K exist in both bloom and vege around same concentration. I'm learning more P than before, despite not showing any problems, is beneficial. I did that from the start and no pm issues after being plagued by it for a while, now. low-p plants are more suscepible to disease, so there's a good chance i'm right here... and a chance i'm wrong... time will tell. But, other than that, i don't change much from vege to bloom formulas... i drop my N 10-20ppm and continue to read the plants for overly dark leaves... that's really the only thing i do differently between plant phases. The general makeup of cells isn't drastically different despite the different physiology. cell walls, dna, organelles are still made of teh same molecules. So, drastic shifts are probably more akin to wanting to do something that helps more than actually helping.
anyway, forma baseline first, then play mad scientist.. at least then you can compare it to a quasi control group of small sample results... rather than just a gut feeling which the more i look around the more i see, bwahaha.