Can the need for novelty and change be mitigated by rotation?

Room acoustic is an optimization process with a guiding rule and acoustically very precise ideal goal : TIMBRE perception and recognition....

"A" guiding rule and one goal? That’s where I think you’re missing the different value system articulated by the OP, @douglas_schroeder and others.

After all:

Which timbre?
Perception and recognition -- how?

I’m in Washington DC right now, near the Philips gallery. There are many ways to have an "accurate" portrait. https://www.phillipscollection.org/collection

Do I incline more toward impressionism or post-impressionism today? A guitar in a Renaissance picture looks like a guitar. So does one in an early Picasso. There’s no simple answer to the question, "What should a guitar look like?" when the goal is "to have an aesthetic experience."

Do you see how it's the same with "timbre"?

You imagine you’ve answered the question posed by the OP because you’re sticking to the view that there is one right timbre, one optimal room ideal, etc.

But that’s exactly what is in dispute. 

+1000 Doug Schroeder's and other's comments. Variety is the spice of life.

Ah, but there's the rub. Is it variety or is it nervosa?

Variety is when one understands and intends that what is happening is the "rotation" (as the OP put it) of gear for the sake of variety. Variety is consciously accepted as a value and goal.

Otherwise, it's not variety; each change is a stepping stone toward the "absolute" sound. (Makes me wonder if monotheism is ultimately to blame for audiophilia nervosa. Just one God? Really? Why? And....we're off to the theological debates! "Just one wife"...uh oh.)

Let's say that change is not seen as good. So that makes it a psychological condition; perhaps this might help:
https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_the_paradox_of_choice?language=en
TED TALK: "Psychologist Barry Schwartz takes aim at a central tenet of western societies: freedom of choice. In Schwartz's estimation, choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied." 15,945,296 views

As for Mahgister's comment about room acoustics ("embeddings!"), he/she/they don't really solve the issue. Because room acoustics can be constantly changed, right?

So, as much as he thinks he "solves" the question -- once again telling gear swappers that they need to focus on the room, baby, the room! -- one could swap and change embeddings and acoustical treatments with as much "nervosa" as others swap gear. There is no way to "rightfully embed" a system if one does not have a single acoustic "sound" they're looking for. He says "One system rightfully done is enough." The issue is "rightfully." So, no solution from the balcony.

(And Mahgister, look: I'm sympathetic with your critiques of consumerism but let's be honest -- no matter how many times you mention that your system cost $500 and everyone else is wasting their time and money if they don't tackle "embeddings" that does NOT address the issue that the OP stated. Because, it's quite possibly NOT about money or stuff or consumerism. It's about optimizing *experience.* Does the room matter? Of course. Could someone go crazy constantly adjusting and changing their room, even while spending no money, just because they cannot decide on what kind of sound they're looking for? Of course. Would that nullify arguments made on the basis of consumerism? Yes, it would. )

We're at a philosophical fork in the road. Is the good One or Many? Well, it depends: https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/James/James_1907/James_1907_04.html

I gave a reasonable response to magister and it was removed. Well argued, whoever. Not. 

make us choose one to be winner FOR US not for all... Simple...
There is MANY better upgrading gear choices but there exist only ONE process of optimization...

I'm not trapping you. You are asserting there is ONE optimization for a user and all I'm saying is that for the very same reason that one might prefer Italian food for one dinner and French food for another, there is no *one* optimization -- for dinner, for acoustics, etc.

All I've said is that you've not offered an argument for why there can only be one optimal set up. And the OP is asking about rotations of different sounding acoustic experiences.

I cannot spend more time reading your very long and convoluted answers. Done with back and forth with you on this thread. You've drowned me in verbiage. If you edited your posts for clarity and concision, I'd be in for a longer back and forth but I cannot stick with this element of this thread. I'm done.