I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

I think what most designers mean when they say accuracy is that the wave form doesn’t change from input to output.

This is electronical accuracy...

This is not acoustic and psych-acoustic "accuracy" which is a word anyway not used in acoustic to describe the naturalness of a timbre tonal playing chord (colors) in some room, at some location, with some violon or with some other violin with this player or this other one... There is not so much  accuracy as such here, but the TRANSLATION of this recorded acoustic event  which imply  a gear designed "accuracy" to convey the acoustic information and a room mechanically controlled  "accuracy" or the most optimal objective acoustic room dispostion for this optimal experience of perception ...

The other issue is how do we prove which exact component is in fact the objectively accurate one. Wouldn't we have to prove that component exactly replicates what the engineers/producers of any particular recording heard when mixing that recording?

Only a system could be deemed accurate. That would by necessity require the same speakers and room to be absolutely accurate.

At a single component level, the only applicable measure would be whether that component faithfully (accurately) outputs whatever it is input. The DAC or Amplifier with the lowest noise and distortion (across a complex set of measurements -- which do seem to be done now), would be as a component the most accurate.

From what Atmasphere has written, there is potential with some speakers, where the speaker is designed to be used with an amplifier with a high output resistance. This brings in a system level accuracy that could not be determined by measuring a single component. Components such as DACs, Pre-amps, and interconnects could be tested in isolation for accuracy. For speaker cables, I don't think accuracy is a relevant measure. They do what they do. R, L, C, and perhaps skin effect. Everything else is just marketing.

@invalid I think what most designers mean when they say accuracy is that the wave form doesn’t change from input to output.

That’s a valid point and therein lies the problem. You can take several examples of audio components that are capable of performing this unaltered waveform function. Yet when listened to, it’s clearly recognized that each of them have their own sonic signature or fingerprints. So which one of them is accurate in reproducing music recordings? @sns comments are on the mark in regard to the concept of audio accuracy.

Charles

Evaluation of the quality of a design is important....

But there is many design quatitative product, and yet a great varieties of acoustic implementation...

Recreating with the original acoustic digitalized or analog information conveyed by the gear system a relatively truthful representation or translation  of this information in a room acoustic is the real problem...

Buying relatively good gear nowadays is easier than in the past...

I believe that this move would please you very much.  Go for it. If I were to make a change

I want to listen first, not just make a change.

I am pretty much done with belief.
(I am not an amp designer, and AFAIK neither are you.)

( Primarily to reduce box count but retain superb sound quality) it'd be either Aries Cerat Genus or the Viva Solista. Both are what I believe to be excellent SET integrated amplifiers. 

I would like to see some meaningful measurements on those amps, rather than go solely by belief.