I understand what you are saying from the end result, but the release notes are usually pretty good at explaining the "why" for a given update. You don't even really need to understand electronics or physics to get the overarching objective that drives most of these changes. It's not "I added some bass or treble to the system". That might be a symptom of the change, but what changed is almost always the manner in which the characteristics of a component is measured and then translated into code. The degree of accuracy to which this is done is what makes the AxeFX unique.
You just have to remember that what makes a guitar amplifier magic is the manner in which it completely screws up the signal coming out of the guitar. They are not good "amplifiers" from a strict definition of the word. If they were it would just be an exact copy of your raw guitar signal at a much louder level. Capturing the manner in which the signal is changed (distorted) from the original is not just a matter of taking the input and comparing it to the output. If it were you could write some kind of code to simulate that, but that would be a static representation (i.e. no consideration for variation in frequency, level, etc). The accuracy of the modeling is based on how realistically/exacting you can simulate every single component individually taking into account how they impact each other within a circuit. None of these components are static or linear; they break down as they heat up, they attenuate some frequencies, they add some resonant frequencies, they clip, etc.
It's the defining of the properties and characteristics of a resistor, a capacitor, a transformer, a piece of wire, etc to simulate the operation of the entire circuit that makes the difference here. The degree of accuracy of how each component's characteristic is defined is based on the manner in which the measurements are made. The degree of accuracy of each is what determines the quality (level of exactness) of the end result.
So basically you could just look at the end result as what was done, but that's not what was specifically done. The majority of release notes indicate changes in the way that a component was measured. If this data was readily available to FAS from the beginning then I'm sure that it would have been used in the initial release and we would have far less updates, but these are physical/analog components that have non-linear properties and he's basically creating new ways to capture those in a variety of scenarios on a continuous basis. I can imagine that some company out there has done a lot of this in some big lab with a lot of engineers and scientists already for some purpose, but I imagine that it would be for internal use only and be guarded.
I'm not trying to be defensive or anything like that. I understand your point. I'm just sharing my perspective and if it's of no use then that is fine. It's not our job as the customers to really care about the process; it's to use the product to do what we need....some of us just like getting a little peek behind the curtain and appreciate the process and amount of work that goes into getting to that final result so some of us probably get a bit defensive about it. Not many companies are as transparent about what it is doing in terms of development nor are they as enthusiastic about sharing incremental changes/discoveries with it's customers as FAS is. As a matter of fact I don't know any other company that is like this. It's one of the things that I enjoy about being a FAS customer....that doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way as I do. Some people just like to use the thing for what it's intended.
You know, the end goal for all of us is to have a product that can recreate all of those amps and stuff as realistically and accurately as possible. I see every update as a step closer to achieving that.