Dan, most manufacturers explore both the stall boundaries and after effects.
Depending on aircraft type, stall characteristics can vary widely. Small differences in build quality or maintenance, structural flexing, weight variation, control rigging, ... all add variability to many uncalculable aerodynamics effects.
See the NASA report relating to 737 stalling, including high altitude. There is reference to a simple stall model suitable for the task, but first define the task; awareness, recognition, avoidance, or recovery. Then provide the funding according to means and need, considering the ever present variability of the human. You could train everyone, but never be assured of the behaviour in operation.
And how many accidents have their been from unrecovered stall encounters in situations where recovery was feasible, i.e. not very low altitude, impaired controls, etc.
“
All airline pilots agreed or strongly agreed that they were surprised by the surprise stall scenario. In that scenario, less than one quarter of the airline pilots strictly followed the proper stall recovery procedure on which they had been briefed. Less than half maintained a nose-down input until the stall warning stopped.
It may not matter what stall model you use if pilots are going to react inappropriately; better to avoid the situation altogether.
https://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/...r_Training.pdf