not really. The design process is simulation (including wind-tunnel, rigs etc) not really historical data, because they have no data on that particular package. A specific suspension setup will not influence two aerodynamically different cars the same. Driver input comes after the car starts running, before it does it's basically the designer trying to optimize drag vs downforce and grip vs tyre degradation. Now if the car comes up and you have say an issue heating up the tyres (that's the objective issue) the designers and engineers will try to figure out a way to solve that problem. There may be 5 different ways to solve it, that's where driver input comes into play and you get into the subjective solutions. It's basically the whole forks in the road thing. Every change you make puts you on a different fork in the development process.
Simulation is not based entirely on fact. There are assumptions made about variables that cannot be predicted.
If we look at front wheel camber change as a function of suspension travel, king pin inclination and castor angle.
There will be data available with sufficent resolution across different circumstances that will indicate load on the tyre for a given downforce and car mass with a set of enviromental conditions. From the load we can predict temps. Lets say the proportion of that data is 50/50. The simulation predicts a temp of 90 for one driver and 60 for the other and we have an average of 75. Let's also say that the optimum window is 60-90 so all is good. Split the proportion 80/20 and we have an average of 84deg. From this data the engineers change the the rate of camber change in the front suspension in order to aim for the centre sweet spot and in simulations record a 5deg reduction in tyre temps.
One driver is OK at his 90 now becoming 85, the other isn't as his 60 is now 55 and out of the window.
Simulation is only as good as the data you feed it and the weight given to each data set.