I hope I don't derail the discussion on this point but people can just skip my post if so and pardon the intrusion.
I wonder again and again about the electronic format of works versus the printed form. I personally believe, as I've said before in other threads, that the electronic work that claims to be the same work (title, authors, edition and such) should contain ALL the material in the printed work. I don't know if that would satisfy your requirements but even if it does we know that the etexts from publishers and other sources often simply don't support this.
But then I use some text, take Wallace as an example, and this theory seems to have its limitations. I see that the Acc version of Wallace has page numbers at various points in the text which is handy because I also have the print edition. But its not easy for me to simply go to a page by page number in the electronic version. Maybe there is a way, but its slightly beside the point in this discussion. The question I'm heading towards is, to what extent should such things continue to work in electronic media ? Hyperlinking in Acc modules is often very extensive and in many cases, supplants this need. Page numbers are very useful for going back and forth between the printed and electronic form, perhaps for detailed references in other material, though this could be done differently in electronic texts too. There are no doubt other examples of limitations of the transferability of print paradigms to electronic reading and research systems. Indexes for example as they are done in Acc are not at the end of the text, but the implementation of them is superior to that approach in the app because of the way the medium works.
If you want additional information added such as synopses and the like that would really be derivative work, but this is already being done with tagging. But it is also possible to support such things in tools modules as is done for other modules.
Which leads me to my other concern with the way these texts are being published. My programmer mind thinks it would be nice if a common format existed and one bought texts from publishers and you plugged them in to a reader. This model however doesn't really work very well in this case because of the lack of adequate relevant standards and would radically affect the profitability of multiple businesses no matter how a user might like it. It would also tend to produce other issues with the quality of texts and so on. I'm not a fit judge but my belief is that the Accordance texts are of very good quality, not faultless certainly, but prepared with great attention and care, and the staff are receptive to input for corrections to be made. So homogenizing this is probably not a viable thing any time soon and perhaps not wise in the end at all.
I'd certainly like to see all the content of print in the electronic and I have no issue with additional info being added if its helpful, but I don't know what latitude the module developers have to add such material - probably none in the text itself - nor what time they have to devote to it.
So in the end I suspect this issue, like others of its type, needs to be taken to the etext source, the publishers. Of course I'm assuming that no etext content is being discarded in the en-moduling process at OakTree but I've never heard anything that indicates that this happens.
Sorry for the longwinded and somewhat off the point message in support of your request, if I understand it, but that's what happens sometimes on Saturday mornings before breakfast. I continue to think about all this. I'll try not to deluge people with long pointless posts on this too frequently