+ + for your response... even though I still have some issues.

1. You say "I am only concerned with having recv'd that majority of files as it generally guarantees that the rest will follow." My paranoia/pessimism (about the inclination of complicated processes to fail unexpectedly) tells me that if I don't have the whole package, I may not get it. OTOH, "...generally guarantees...." is likely a fair to good indicator if your "extensive historic data" allows you to infer a stage at which the feed is unlikely to fail.
2. On the proverbial third hand, why mark a feed "completed" when it's not? You could just as well mark it "Lookin' good, so far at nn%" and report that to your ap. And, perhaps even better, you could also use your historic data to call attention to any feed that is failing to satisfy your "likely to succeed" criterion at some stage of reception.

   A notice that one has a potential problem is likely, IMO, to be more useful than a notice that says 'All's well on the Western Front."

GrandFather's approach should be easy to adapt to identifying likely failures.