Coming from a manufacturing environment, one thing that I see often is that a .44 K-factor does not hold up to reality.
If a customer brings a design to my shop for fabrication, I often see that the developed pattern is incorrect and must make adjustments in house to produce the results they desire. Most designers include a note that the final size is more important than the developed flat pattern and thus I have to work as if they have not given me a developed pattern in the first place. I have always sent samples to the shop to verify a part that requires a tight tolerance, however, I do not see a reasonable way to take this back to the computer and document it for future use. It appears that what Fusion produces as a flat pattern is the only solution that can be documented, short of drawing the part flat from scratch.
An example; this morning I drew a part that is a very common material and punch for my shop; .06 Carbon Steel, R.06 Punch. I made the part 2.00" long with a 2.00" long flange at 90° (Height Datum: Outer Faces, Bend Position: Inside). This, typically, works out to a .118 Bend Allowance (developed length of 3.882) with our press brakes, which equates to roughly a .30 K-factor, while Fusion's developed length is 3.896 when the part is unfolded. While the .014 difference between these two is not significant, the accumulated variation in a part with multiple bends, and the variation in a part with large radii is what hurts in the end.
The only work around that I can think of at the moment is to play with the radius until I get a flat length that is correct to my machinery.
