Bob,
Here is the thing. I didn't ask for a Track View. It was an interesting and bold decision by PGM. At first, I saw it as burden, similar to a complexity you are describing. But I gave it some time and it works wonders when it comes to partial regeneration and other types of visualization and editing.

My take is this. If something gets rolled out, it should get finished. At least bare minimum standards, which in this particular case I believe would be input selection, input metering and Arming track on the track headers and a full length vertical cursor instead of a short one they got now.

Yes, we had several big conversations this year on what people wanted for 2025. General consensus concerning software (not the content) was that people want to see know issues fixed + existing features finished and improved, including improving workflow.
Getting basic standard functions (that are present in other form already in BIAB) at the track level is "improving existing features" in my view.