I'm not trying to burst your bubble but I would like to offer my opinion on this request.
Part of why the Cinematic Studio Series is not only popular but also very successful is due to it's simplicity of functionality. This was proven with their original Cinematic Strings 1 and 2 which is still a very well received and usable library from a professional perspective. When you look at all the other libraries that have adopted the "divisi" concept, we've seen fail (not always) but because those features are a frustrating aspect of the library to use. LASS, arguably, is the only string library that got it right but even then, the complexity of that library makes it one that is frustrating to use, more many. I don't know any composers in my circle that use LASS on anything these days because of how much work it takes to set up in a template, balance, test for functionality, etc. The results, even in the hands of a very capable mock up artist, are comparable to the results of Cinematic Studio Strings. The Berlin series fails at this concept too, not only in lack of balanced articulations from instrument to instrument but also between the single instruments and their respective sections. You can't simply copy and paste from one single instrument to the next because they didn't record the same dynamic ranges with them.
My argument is simply this, why change a formula that works very well at the core purpose of the libraries Alex makes? The long awaited Brass library has been insanely successful based on it's online reception. It offered more than we anticipated, at least for me, and it was very competitively priced. It also met loads of end user expectations from what I can tell. I've not found a rolling consensus on anything so negative to thwart sales on it other than it *not* having specific brass instruments. Just my take on this. I'd prefer, as a user of CSS, that he stick to his creative approach to this series because it's not only easy to use but sounds freaking great.
Cheers,
Chris