If your application does 80% of all work 50% better than the rest, and the last 20% at least just as bad as everyone else, then even if there will be folks who want something that is more specifically tailored to that one thing they really want to do you still have an amazing product. That's certainly Blender, and if someone wants to try to achieve the same in DAW land, most folks who use DAWs will be watching that development with excitement.
They may not switch primary DAW, but using different tools sparks different creative flows, and in a few rare cases, you stick with the new tool.
The slow development of DAWs and ther interfaces is really interesting and I'd love to know your thoughts on explorable UI/UX. You have a very hard job.
(Although of course, if you _make_ a DAW your story is vastly different from the end user experience. You are not hoping to find that magic, you'll have already determined what the magic is, and considered most ways to try to implement it, and maybe even fell out of love with it because of that)
that's on the radar as well https://todo.sr.ht/~alextee/zrythm-feature/115
although you can already do this if you use the carla plugin. that feature is about having a more native way to create your own "patches" by connecting various modules/plugins in a container plugin
This doesn't include "generation environments" like VCV Rack, Reaktor, Bespoke and many others that don't have any traditional DAW features but are immensely powerful tools for synthesis and compositional discovery and creation.
Depending on the uniqueness of your imagined or actual workflow, there is probably a tool that comes close, but the potential variations do imply that its not hard to come up with a description for "what I really want in an audio tool" that just doesn't exist (at least not without you doing significant work yourself e.g. programming in PureData).