I think what is noted in the recording notes is in large part legacy based and defacto standardized, a direct descendant of historical trading modes, sort of another extension of the angle Limit35 mentions above, and with which I agree. The most basic info I find commonly lacking in the recording notes which I always look for is mention of the microphone setup configuration, as that makes a larger contribution to the sound of the resulting recording (and is important to know if trying to make a judgement as a taper) than other inconsequential stuff commonly listed in far more detail in the transfer lineage. I'd just like to see general spacing and angle info, or note of DIN or NOS or ORTF or whatever in addition to the model and make of the microphones. Many tapers do note that, but many others don't.
two three good counter arguments for EQing and other post manipulation other than straight normalizing, tracking and fading that I can think of:
1) Don't want additional post work burden.
2) Obscures the "as it sounds raw" output of the microphones.
3) Don't want to unintentionally do more harm than good.
We've covered one, and each taper can make their own choice there, depending on their own mindset and the value they attach to the recording. Argument two only matters to other tapers trying to make generalized gear comparisons by listening to a number of recordings made with the same microphones, and with the caveat of realizing there are many other variables which may make such comparisons useless- room, band, pa, soundguy, mic config, etc. It's argument three which I think is the strongest counter argument, relates directly into what you just mentioned, and the most problematic.
It's relatively easy to determine that the recording sounds better to you after your post manipulations, but is it really better in an objective sense, for everyone else? And although some aspects are better, have I made other things worse? Have I limited the options for what someone else can do to it later if they so choose? The potential problem I see is not so much that the changes introduced are personal tweaks that other folks may not agree with which, because it's accepted as okay to personally tweak everything else- deciding to record or not, what gear to use, what configuration to use, where to setup, how to manage levels, even tracking and fading decisions. Rather it's trying to make sure you aren't fooling yourself, or correcting for something specific only to your own hearing or the deficiencies of your monitoring setup. Those are very real and difficult to assess potential problems, but using a less that optimal setup configuration or recording from a less than optimal location is also a real problem which strongly effects the resulting recording, and although some may ask why you chose to record using a particular microphone configuration rather than the one they think would be best, none would suggest that the choice of whichever microphone setup you use isn't something you should be deciding for yourself.
Listen again later to confirm you're on the right track, check things on a few different systems to develop a sense of what you need to work around in your own preferences and the deficiencies of your monitoring system used for the editing. And when in doubt, it may be a good safe bet to dial back your corrections and euphonious tweaks a bit.