I've been thinking about this issue since you posted this a few days back. I'm happy to see some formal recognition that the A1c number contains some serious flaws. First is the nature of any average number, if you don't see the range of the data then you have no idea as to blood glucose variability.
I have four outcomes that I use my CGM to monitor that help me gauge how well my regimen works. Note that A1c is not one of them! In ranked order of importance to me and my quality of life:
Time in range, 65 mg/dl - 140 mg/dl, >= 80%.
Time hypo, under 65 mg/dl, <= 5%.
Blood glucose variability as measured by standard deviation <= 30 mg/dl.
Blood glucose average < = 105 mg/dl.
Now I know that the medical and regulatory community may not agree with my use of the term "outcome" in this context. I have long experience, over 280,000 hours living with type I diabetes, and I know that meeting these goals produces more motivation than I exert, makes me feel physically better, and convinces me with each successful day that I have the power to deal effectively with diabetes. This is a potent reinforcement to my emotional well-being. Perhaps a question and answer survey could measure this sense of well-being. It is obvious to me when I have it and when I don't.
Do I understand the nature of the FDA patient video request? If it only seeks 10 seconds of my thoughts then I'm not sure about the quality of the feedback.
It seems that Pharma is more concerned with economic success than they are with patient outcomes. Why do most drug studies screen out, during phase zero, patients that may show susceptibility to adverse side effects? Adverse side effects of any proposed drug need to show their full quantity to regulators, clinicians, and patients, not some "doctored number."
In summary, I propose outcomes be measured regarding quality of life and the emotional impact of any tactic or drug used.