Honestly think the Coast does better in cold core setups compared to the Valley for the fall season, but because of less land area, it ends up being a wash in the end. The alternate name is low CAPE high shear. The shear on the coast is normally not an inhibiting factor (and less terrain to steer low level shear), but it rarely works out in the Spring since the waters are colder than so less CAPE.
Granted I feel I'm one of the few meteorologists who is more fascinated by Manzanita 2016, than Portland-Vancouver 1972.
There was a cold core funnel in Forest Grove Yesterday.
We also traded cold core "one clap wonders" for 3 days of decent thunderstorms if you were in the right spot (or in the case of 4/10, everywhere except the NE Valley or right on I-5)
Fantastic writeup as always man. You put it better than I ever could.
I think one of the key signifiers that it wasn't "cold core", was that the instability that day was built directly via surface heating and the advection of warmer air feeding northward up the Willamette Valley, rather than an elevated cold pool forcing conditional buoyancy. The storms which formed the Vancouver F3 were comprised of surface parcels feeding into the forward flank of the Pacific cold front, not Pacific air from behind within the postfrontal environment. It was all prefrontal, and that fact is defined by the airflow involved.
Thermals were surely borderline, and the modest cooling aloft as the front approached certainly aided conditional instability. So when I said it was entirely warm core I was a little wrong. But it was early April in the PNW, so a 62/55 type environment wasn't too surprising. Actually, despite being a non-environment east of the Rockies, such a spread is actually pretty typical within a wet season atmospheric river before the passage of its cold front. I think you are right in that it could be seen as a "hybrid" event. It actually reminds me a lot of triple point cold core setups in the midwest, without the hanging warm front and less cold pool advection aloft.