It's such a privilege to have such easy contact to the Autodesk managers in charge of these things!
An amateur observation I have based on some small experience: today is different to years past - we now have widespread 3D manufacturing, so the very idea of CFD is outdated. Math used to be necessary because it was infeasible to do real studies, which is no longer the case. The huge problem with Computational fluid dynamics is that first word: "Computational" - to get that bit right, requires such superhuman understanding of every single complex facet of the problem that what we typically find in practice is that none of it really works properly.
Bottom line: do not believe the hype - pretty graphics and high-brow reports do not mean the answer is right, or that if it was right, that they knew it was so before they went and did a test to check it (i.e. they cheated, and changed their answer to match the question afterwards).
If you're evaluating stuff, do not look at their claims - give them a few tests where they cannot cheat (do not let them have the answer, and do not give them enough time to "validate their results" outside of their software), and see if it really works.
If you're still just thinking about this - outside the box might be a nice place to start. Maybe instead of "CFD" an "AFD" answer would be far better: "Actual Fluid Dynamics" - an automated system to build and test a real design with embedded sensors, which is guaranteed to return real results, because it *was* real. (or perhaps a hybrid, where customer pay more for real, or even an A.I. version, where the A.I. learns how to properly emulate "real" by first creating genuine "real" and learning from how that really behaves).