Great discussion.
How many engineers did it take to design a horse? I don't know but the result was a camel!
The beauty of computer modeling, is that we can improve the model with every new ongoing data experience.
We use the results of computer modeling everytime we pick up our CFP (Upper wind models).
I can remeber when a 14 hour flight could be +- 10 mins. I have flown many flights that are +- 2 mins or less after 14 hours.
The added beauty of trialing a prototype is that one can correct computer models with hard data.
The argument that one needs to find a completely still air position on the airfield, as in a hangar is akin to the argument that one needs to find a completely perfect MWBS (Load control, loading and load data sheet system).
If we take the analogy of speed monitoring and compliance on the road we can say the current system is like te police being issued with a note pad, pencil and stop watch.
Their task? Time a vehicle between two staitonary objects (Lamp posts) and bingo you have the third element, speed.
Some police officers will be very very good. Some mediocre and some lousy. Of course the legal defence team would have a field day and there would likely be no convictions.
Give the police however an external, accurate independent and verifable tool (Radar or laser gun) and bingo you have convictions.
So enough of the hair splitting. Even with a perfect, load control system, perfect loading procedures and personel and a perfect load sheet, how is the the weight & balance checked by external, accurate, independent and verfiable means?
Why does it have to be checked this way? Because any system design that has any measure of validity needs to be independently checked and verified.
Maybe a better way to look at the issue is to study the present system from systemic and analytical angles. I have done that and I have come up with a threat & error management model that I am willing to share for discussion and improvement, privately.