Not really, no. You described the difficulty I have in your first post on this thread.
At some point, somebody or something has to decide what sample to use for what length of note. Sample libraries don’t care whether the note on the page is a half note at 120bpm or a quarter note at 60bpm - all that matters is that the note lasts a second and should thus be mapped to a sample that’s around a second long (or a shorter sample that’s appropriate to loop, or whatever).
In situations where the tempo changes within a flow, or where the tempo is particularly fast or slow, terms for conditions like “half” and “dotted quarter” just aren’t helpful. Dorico still has to calculate what a dotted quarter actually amounts to as a fraction of a second, in order to figure out which condition to trigger and why. If you’re trying to figure out why the mapping you have in front of you doesn’t quite work for your given tempo or sample library, or how to get the best out of your library, the mechanics are exposed to you. It’s not necessarily the nicest way for a playing musician to think about note lengths, but there’s not much that Steinberg can do about the physics of samples. The fact is that given samples suit specific note lengths in fractions of seconds, because they’re recorded as note lengths in fractions of seconds.
If you have conditions such as “Note Length => Quarter” and then you write something at half the “default tempo”, some users (not necessarily you) are still going to have to look at the manual to find out what the default tempo is, and why a “Quarter” condition actually means a “Half” at their given tempo, not to mention the fact that there’d be terminology in front of them (quarter, half etc.) that actually didn’t refer to those note-values in their use case. To the uninitiated user, that would look like a bug.
I’m struggling to see how this is better.