How do we explain the data (red stars) from a sequence of templates (green stars)?  There are huge changes in syllables 2 and 4, though neither of those syllables bothers a native listener.   In syllable 2, the tone 4 is realized as something like a tone 2, but (in context), listeners identify it as a tone 4.  The tone on the last syllable is drastically pushed down, yet is again correctly perceived in context.  Obviously, intonation is not a simple concatenation of templates.
	It is equally true that intonation is not the result of a simple smoothing operation as assumed by Fujisaki.   The strength of a smooth that would be needed to invert the second syllable would be very large and would oversmooth many other sections.    Likewise, the lowering of the final tone is not consistent with a simple smoothing operation.
	The clue to what is going on likes at the boundary between the first and second syllables.    Linguistically, the pitch should instantly hop up from the end of tone 3 to the beginning of tone 1, but that’s physically impossible – the muscles can’t respond instantly.   Another clue is that the second syllable is weak, based on other evidence (phoneme substitution, etc).  It looks like the brain is deliberately sacrificing the second syllable so that it’s neighbors can be executed properly.