What do you think of thunks?

Introducing new parameters to a problem often means considering a new approach. For example:

=FILTER(Data, MAXIFS(Data[Value], Data[Date], ">=" & Data[Date] - 2, Data[Date], "<=" & Data[Date] + 2) = Data[Value])

However, I do respect PeterBartholomew1 for his quest to find a generalized approach for any given situation. My answer to the question, "What do you think of thunks?", remains the same: I think they're great for some situations and overkill for others. I would highly encourage anyone who's taken an interest in this sort of thing to explore the concepts that Peter has shared, but to also explore alternative methods as well. The more you know, the better your chances will become for finding an appropriate solution to any problem. ;)

I have my prejudices, but I would expect my approach to become stronger.  If, say, XLOOKUP were used to identify first and last cells in each range, then the range ":" operator would return a variable length range for each mapped value.  I could put the search criterial within a Lambda function to modularise the problem and then return the ranges within thunks (ranges, especially of varying size would throw an error within MAP).

I can then perform the calculations on the individual time slices of the data table with a second application of MAP (or, better, a custom version of MAP that expands the thunks automatically before passing the range to the function specified by the formula

MAPϑ
= LAMBDA(ϑ, FNλ, 
    MAP(ϑ, LAMBDA(ϑ, FNλ(ϑ())))
);

The strategy would be to break the calculation into a hierarchy of Lambda functions, each one with a well defined task.  In essence, I propose to use thunks as a 'pass by reference' strategy, as opposed to 'pass by value'.

I would think Daniel's approach could be easily adapted to that:

=FILTER(C3:D25,MAP(C3:C25,LAMBDA(x,AND(XLOOKUP(x,C3:C25,D3:D25)>N(FILTER(D3:D25,(x-2<C3:C25)*(x+2>C3:C25),0)))))))