More natural = irregular? Playback predictability and imitating real musicians for the sake of it

Hi,

let me state upfront that I appreciate the work that people put into MuseSound, a free product, even if it may not be for me. :)

I just tried Musescore 4 and MuseSound again after a year, to see how it has improved. I love using Musescore 3 with oldschool soundfonts, and I cannot seem to wrap my head around MuseSound, and figure out what the overall design intention is.

Example:
I have 4 quarter notes in violin, pizzicato, at ff. When I play it back, the third one is a Bartók pizz, the others are much more quiet. Huh.

Is the goal to simulate the natural chaos that real musicians introduce? I was hoping to avoid that by staying on the computer. :D

This is meant as a more general question, I'm curious what people's goals are with playback. For me, it's most important that I know what I'll get when I type in some notes; reliably getting something that doesn't sound so good is preferable to erratically sometimes getting something amazing and sometimes a complete mess.

Another example: Very long held notes on a solo string instrument. A real musician will train very hard to make the change of bow as unnoticeable as possible. Meanwhile the software deliberately adds it, despite being technically capable of just holding indefinitely. I'm wondering ... why? Shouldn't we be glad that computers can do things that humans cannot?

I have never used high-end playback software like NotePerformer, so I don't know whether this approach is universal.

My best musical results so far have been with the "expressive" sf3 soundfonts that came with MuseScore 3. It's amazing what you can do by tinkering with the dynamics of a single note, splitting it up in many notes tied together and then adding > and < between them. Very time-expensive, but I feel like I have control over how it will sound, unlike with more advanced tech.