Not jumping in to defend another contributor or to heap criticism on Roon staff, but sometimes the easiest way to illustrate a lack of feature or unexpected feature behaviour is by comparison with known functionalities/features in other software.
Not with the intent of stating “this is a better way of going about to solve the issue” but as a way of stating: “this is how I wish the software would behave and maybe you don’t have to rethink your whole approach, you could just implement this or that tried and tested solution alongside your own stuff.”
The Roon staff are quite willing to enter into dialog with the users. They also suffer - quite understandably - from tunnel vision. Creators of all sorts often suffer from this. This is why writers use editors: to find the flaws they can’t find by themselves anymore. Musicians and composers do the same: they call upon producers and arrangers.
In software development such a form of assistance doesn’t exist. Alpha and Beta testers don’t have the same influence as editors have. Alpha and beta tests are usually too focused on code functionality and focus very little on user satisfaction.
The times I have beta tested commercial software, the only review feedback that was asked for was performance feedback, not useability feedback. The useability feedback I did give was initially ignored. A few updates later I started to see some of my suggestions appear in the software. Funny and disheartening at the same time.