Ah, gotcha. I also did a little poking around the projector, it's a good idea (altho...it seems very conservative?). I doubt it would be particularly difficult to implement.
OTOH, I think I'm still missing how it would help the AI evaluate players in ways that using the available scouting wouldn't. I can think of dozens of ways to improve the AI player evaluation, so I'm not saying that it's good in its present form.
I suppose having some sort of value-projection system could help with the portion of AI eval that is based on stats. Ultimately, tho, I think the end result of having the AI use ratings to project stats in order to have more stats for player eval is basically the same as just eliminating the stat portion of the AI's player evaluation. I mean, if you're projecting stats from ratings in order to help the AI make better decisions based on statistics, you might as well just scrap the stat portion and make the AI's player evaluation totally ratings based, as it was prior to OOTP 6, because you're going to end up with similar results.
Now, if the AI were more aware of player progression and a player's rating/scouting history...
Edit: I think the easiest way to improve the AI, is to sit down, smack the computer's ass a bunch of times, and then teach the AI how you did it. For instance - the AI can be easily beaten by overpaying for a free agent, and then immediately trading him for someone of similar value who costs less. This could be fixed by having no-trade clauses. Another example...when a player starts to decline, they continue to decline 99.9% of the time. I regularly trade 32-35 year old players to the AI for prospects with similar immediate value (and who are, of course, within 6-18 months of being significantly better than the player I'm trading) because I recognize this. So teach the AI that. Fixing the AI really shouldn't be as difficult as it seems to be.