I thought this was an official statement :S
At the end of the day this is still speculation, and it'd be nice if these features were explicitly delved into by Sony proper, like they did back in March in with the SSD, Tempest Engine, and the cache scrubbers. Lack of transparency ultimately isn't a good thing on this note because it just lets theories run wild.
Also like I was saying last night, "customization" doesn't mean all that much in the end. It just means differentiation. There's no quality inherently attached to that. The customization could be better, could be just as good as the default, or it could even be worst. We don't know. But you'd have to understand what the default is in the first place.
Now I see a lot of people using "standard AMD" or "standard RDNA" like badges of shame; it's a retroactive way of trying to weigh the scales (whatever those scales are) in their favor. But ultimately, it's silly. And I don't know if people who do that realize it or not, but that's also them indirectly shitting on AMD's own solutions. Yet, if those solutions were so bad, why would Sony have worked with them on the APU in the first place? See how this creates a conundrum? By that measure, Sony could've simply developed the APU themselves, but they haven't done that in over a decade.
It's just time to let "it" go. Wait for official statements; finding patents and research papers are nice and help a lot with speculation obviously, but ultimately still need some official details and statements to help truly tie them in as something that's being applied in practice in a working product. All of these companies, like Sony and Microsoft, have a ton of patents for technologies that won't be in the next-gen systems in any way, shape, or form. Should we keep thinking they're present though simply because the patents and papers exist? At some point, you have to have a cutoff, and these systems are coming out in two weeks.