Gap in between Cut/Fill Slope End Conditions

Do you have an Feature Name Override set on the cut and fill features, and the components?

No, not this time, unfortunately. Any other thoughts as to what might be the cause?

If you have a FNO on the features, they should join up and remove the gaps.

But that was causing me issues last time because I have a left and a right side. I am targeting a Feature Definition on both End Conditions, (FD is designated by a L and a R) which adds a new set of complexity, I believe?.

I usually use a feature name override on my tie-in points like CLim_L (or CLim_R) so that my left (or right) cut/fill slopes tie together. I may not be making complex enough templates at this point to have seen the issues you have seen because this worked pretty well for me.

This solution works only if you don't care to show whether those catchpoints are in cuts or fills.  It's also not accurate in those transitions, unless one of the template drops just happens to fall at the zero-cut/zero-fill location.  It's accuracy does, however, improve with tighter template drops.  There is no "clean" and truly accurate solution.  You can spend some time (possibly a lot of time) figuring out where to drop a special station at the specific transition point or you can increase the template drop frequency to improve the accuracy of the transition.

That said, it's probably the best solution we'll have for a while.  I would like to see a transition tool for end conditions similar to the transition tool for backbones that allows the user to define how to connect differently named features in subsequent template drops.

This solution works only if you don't care to show whether those catchpoints are in cuts or fills.  It's also not accurate in those transitions, unless one of the template drops just happens to fall at the zero-cut/zero-fill location.  It's accuracy does, however, improve with tighter template drops.  There is no "clean" and truly accurate solution.  You can spend some time (possibly a lot of time) figuring out where to drop a special station at the specific transition point or you can increase the template drop frequency to improve the accuracy of the transition.

That said, it's probably the best solution we'll have for a while.  I would like to see a transition tool for end conditions similar to the transition tool for backbones that allows the user to define how to connect differently named features in subsequent template drops.