In this type of microphone, the polarizing voltage for the front half of each capsule is kept constant (typically 60 Volts) while the polarizing voltage for the back half is varied from -60 through 0 to +60 to create the range of patterns. And then there is only one audio output from that capsule (its front and back combined).
As a result, you can't obtain four discrete signals from the "capsule halves" in this type of microphone. You would need to redesign/replace the entire electronics of the microphone to do that, and it would take highly specialized skills and knowledge, since it would involve the ultra-high-impedance circuitry that interfaces with the capsule. It's beyond the skill set of most repair technicians, in other words, even most of those who have experience servicing professional condenser microphones.
Back in the "quadraphonic" era, Neumann offered a "quad" version of its SM 69 fet stereo microphone called the QM 69. This microphone used a 12-conductor shielded cable, providing the signals from four near-coincident "half-capsules" as if they were four electrically separate cardioid microphones. Each "half-capsule" had its own electronics in the mike body, and four channels of phantom powering were required. I actually was recorded (as a student musician) with a QM 69 for an album on Golden Crest LPs back in the day. The SM 69fet already allowed the user to vary the microphone's patterns remotely (like your AKGs); the QM 69 microphone was intended for quad recording rather than as a means to allow "remote pattern control after the fact."
The larger problem is this: Whenever you vary the patterns on a coincident stereo microphone, you also want to adjust the physical angle between the left and right capsules to match the pattern--and you can't do that "after the fact" with this type of configuration. In practice you have to choose the angle between capsules and the location of the overall microphone when you set up; then you end up having very little choice as to which pattern will sound best within the constraints of that angle and the placement of the microphone.
So I don't think this is a route to audio nirvana. You might want to look into Soundfield recording and "Double M/S" recording, both of which are flexible, interesting, practical approaches as far as they go. But I would never want to limit myself to coincident miking techniques, except in the kinds of situations that require them (e.g. when you need stereo/mono playback compatibility, or when you need the absolute smallest two-mike setup).