In this case I only have a 6ms window anyways, so a few ms is pretty big all things considered!
In the JIT-MFCC testing I played around with moving things back by some samples, but that didn’t seem to make any meaningful difference.
My theory here is that since I only have a finite amount of sounds I can make with my snare, that specifically the attack will give me a reliable (enough) idea of what the next 94ms will sound like.
I did think about trying to compensate for the re-onset-detection stuff, where I +/- some samples on either end to compensate for the fact that the final audio will have gone through that process twice, but I don’t think that will generalize out.