Do you have a concrete example of the improvement that you expect in this case because it's totally obscure for me? Among the informations that you get, it seems to me that you're the only one to know what's really useful to you. The message that is returned by an exception, for example, is set most of the time by the developer, not by B4A or the Java runtime. So you cannot give a better explanation than the one that the developer provided. You can have millions of different reasons behind the same exception. And when it happens that the reason returned is wrong (like it happens when you run libGDX or ULV in debug mode because of their multithreading execution), Erel cannot detect that's wrong. In this particular case, you have to carefully examine what's in the unfiltered log to understand.* If possible, try to make messages that appear in runtime not just return the Java error, but also try to give some reference back to the relevant B4X code. It's not always the amount of info that's impossible, it's the usefulness of it.
Concerning the relevant B4x code, you have the debugger to handle that. You have also the Java line that is indicated in the log so you can find it in the generated source and, as Erel is a clever guy, he added the corresponding B4A line as a comment just above the Java line so you know where the exception happened. What is missing exactly?