I'm sorry but I don't understand your question, though I get the impression that you may be approaching EQ from the wrong standpoint.
There seems to be a misconception surrounding Har-Bal that says that Har-Bal knows what your track spectrum should look like and be able to correct it. Nothing could be further from the truth and anyone using Har-Bal with that stand point is likely to have mixed results.
The correct mind set in using Har-Bal is to combine what you hear with what track analysis "may" be telling you. Start by carefully listening to your track and paying close attention to what sounds distressing or disturbing to your ears. If nothing does then nothing need be changed but if something does then ask yourself if the track analysis shows anything that may possibly explain why it sounds as it does. In essence, propose a hypothesis in the analysis and then set out to test that hypothesis by making changes to the spectrum.
For instance, I find the vocals harsh and thin. The mid-range shows a dip around 500Hz and there is peaking around 3kHz. I postulate that the mid-range dip is making the vocals sound thin and the peaking at 3kHz making it sound harsh. Now I set out testing the hypothesis by cutting the peakiness around 3kHz and then listening to the change in sound. Does it sound less harsh? If yes then that postulate appears to be correct, If no then that is not the cause. Boost the mid-range around 500Hz and listen to the change. Does it sound fuller? If yes then the postulate is correct, and so on.
That is the correct approach to using Har-Bal. It is a process of incremental improvement through hypothesis testing. You cannot accurately judge whether the spectrum of a track demonstrates a problem without listening to it. Listening is an essential part of the process and it is best to make gradual incremental changes and test each change as you go, keeping those that improve the track and undoing those that make it worse.
I hope this helps.