Well, no speed schedule tables either
If your software permits playing a bit, try running a series of calculations for reducing weights down to the APS typical weight. You will probably see the effect towards the lower weight end in the output.
you can end up using all of that runway
While some operators do this .. you can also limit the optimisation to give you a pad. For instance, you could use data for an intersection but actually takeoff from an earlier entry point or limit the flex temperature. If you have more user flexibility in a particular program, you probably can limit arbitrarily the runway lengths to provide whatever pad you choose. Talking what ifs here, of course .. operator SOP probably limits your real world flexibility.
i would be interested to see someone peg a V2 that is only 2 kts higher than Vr
Using the OEM AFM techniques, you should be able to peg the AFM recommended V2 OEI without too much difficulty. The VR/V2 relationship includes consideration of the speed increase OEI. If you have a failure prior to VR you should expect to end up someone near V2 towards the end of the rotation sequence. If the rotation is AEO and then you have a failure in the initial climb, you would normally expect to see an AEO speed overshoot (+20-25 being typical). You would then prefer to hold the overspeed to take advantage of the improved climb ... the AEO bit will have put you above the OEI profile so all should be well. My comments may not apply to specific aircraft but will be fairly general in application.
does not satisfy the requirement of maintaining a demonstrated VMCA in case of a minimum V2 take off.
Given that you won't know the precise details of what the certification flight test folks did, you can only work on the basis of what's in the AFM guidance material. If you comply with that guidance, you can presume that the OEM has considered all relevant matters including turns and Vmc effects.