Yes or even better some boundaries.
Assume a glass grid shell, for the width of the panels you should not use values >2.5 m (fabrication issues), whereas you do not want it to drop smaller than 0.5 m for most parts of the structure.
As said previously one direction should be <2.5 m but the other one could easily be up to 6 m. Therefore a ratio and/or boundaries would be nice to have.
Of course these boundaries can only be soft bounds for not limiting the solver too much, but knowing about a soft bound it would still bring you closer to the desired mesh.
Here is another question on the planarity of the quad mesh.
I tried with your testsample (fertility.3dm) but always got the message "Mesh consists of several connected components… _weld …) . Not being able to fix it on your test model I came up with a torus to testdrive T.MAP.
While choosing DirectionNoBoundaries to None/Curvature resulted in the obviously plane quad mesh. Trying the Curves option after drawing a partial helix on the torus surface in combination with a small number of levelsets resulted in heavily warped quads which is understandable,
The question is whether it would be a good idea to have a planarization boundary, so that you have a chance to weigh the importance of planarization.
By the way, will you come up with a floating licence on T.MAP as well?
We are thinking about buying the evolute PRO and T.MAP but only if we can have floating licences for all software parts.