With regard to "exact determination" of physical and temporal dimensions, is it not the case that NTSB investigation reports in fact do strive for precision? And this applies to incidents with serious implications, not just accidents - the Board inquiry after the 2017 Air Canada Fl 759 incident in San Francisco looked at a good number of precise factors (iirc). I don't know about Aircraft Accident Investigation Board reports relating to incidents in other countries, though.
Logically, striving for precision in the physical and timing dimensions makes a great deal of sense imo. After the 2017 KSFO incident, didn't you wonder, '..... if the United pilot had hesitated just a second longer before calling attention to where Air Canada 759 was lined up, would it have been too late, by the laws of physics, to avoid some level of collision?' Plenty of other variables in that incident as well - reaction time of AC crew, for instance. And without pounding further on the dead horse here, there are plenty of variables in the Austin incident which, if changed just slightly, quite plausibly would have led to some level of accident or conflagration. So the quest for precision serves a purpose, I think.
(ATC Watcher - the upcoming ATMWorld conference for ANSPs might be an interesting place for prompting (or even provoking) discussions about how "extra" information about practices involving specific aircraft types could be disseminated more effectively. Certainly CANSO *should* be interested, no?)