I agree with what you are saying, but I am looking for possible ways to make something that is complicated today be less complicated in the future. I love Dorico’s flexibility, and being a long-time InDesign user, I felt at home right away with the Engrave tab, and the only real complaint I have about it is that it’s not enough like InDesign! 
(I miss the mm sizing boxes, the smart guides, ability to copy+paste frames, &c.)
As Daniel explained > here> , “The reason you don’t see these anomalies in Adobe InDesign is because InDesign never automatically crates pages in order to make sure that all of the content that might be lurking in any of the chains of text frames in your document actually appears, whereas Dorico has to do this automatically”
I get it, but there has to be some smart way to handle this…
I think this simplification would diminish the flexibility of layout in Dorico. Flows ≠ movements - they can be used in many creative ways where you never would want a title. If you haven’t seen it yet, have a look at > this > tutorial, which demonstrates some of the layout possibilities using flows. Text frames are an important part of this flexibility. I think that having some text within the text frames, and some floating around without would give far less control over the result (I’m not talking about music text such as tempo, playing techniques and etc, which has to be linked directly to the music).
Correct, and I’m not advocating the removal of text frames—I think they are absolutely needed. But you could also have flow-attached text, and when you wanted to do something like the choral preces (which I had seen when Daniel first blogged about it) you would simply leave the title, composer, and other text blank (or “unattached” to that specific flow).
These are just ideas, of course… What matters most here is the dialogue and exchange of ideas! 
As for your list:
- Agree with this, great idea!
- Perhaps a better implementation of this could solve the issue that originated this thread?