Why does the EBM guide overlook the 'unrealised value' that I have in both T2M and A2I?
I believe this view applies just as well here. Perhaps I should use a different term, given that there is no actual "Value" in T2M and A2I.
Wouldn't the following approach be more logical:
Value: What about 'Current Value' and 'Unrealised Value'?
T2M: What are my 'Current T2M' and 'Unrealised T2M Possibilities'?
A2I: What are my 'Current A2I Status' and 'Unrealised A2I Possibilities'?
Is there a reason why the EBM guide only divides 'Value' in this way?
There's probably nothing wrong with handling it this way in practice. However, whenever I have had questions like this about the Scrum.org guides in the past, I have usually overlooked or misunderstood something.
Unrealised T2M or A2I possibilities may be a consequence of technical debt, which is one of the KVMs for A2I. Poor tooling, poor automation, poor maintainability etc.
I wouldn't say that's the reason you are looking for, but it is a lens through which these matters can be considered.