Usability for human analysis will likely be more successful going a similar direction Maia is going with the lc0 like net trained to make human moves. SF is inherently so far removed from the human approach to chess (relatively speaking), that it would likely require a lot more work than just tuning it to work well on some positions.

There would be value in prep if one had an engine that automatically understood what positions are challenging for humans, as right now a big part of high level prep is finding opening lines that look like they lose by a bit in stockfish vs stockfish, but are full of landmines for a top GM to step on. That's where a lot of time goes nowadays, past the pure memorization. The issue is that value drops a lot when other players have access to the same tools, because then they will also pay attention to those lines. The value is in the information imbalance, but everyone has the same tools.

It might help young players learning without a coach, but my understanding is that most are just looking at engine evaluation anyway, as tactical speed is a typical advantage of the youth.

Is your fork public? Have an example of where Stockfish does not blunder with your change?

It's not public, but the diff is tiny: https://pastebin.com/Nd2sS0KX

Also - it's not only my change is making stockfish not blunder. Any little change in the code or execution will butterly-effect into no blunder.

To reproduce a bunder you have to be very deterministic. You need to specify threads = 1, and fixed cache sizes.

I have no logs and exact settings used anymore unfortunately.

One example move was 48. g4 from this game: https://lichess.org/osSoJGzO#95