More informative? I guess. Ultimately I am going to be sitting in one spot. What it sounds like somewhere else doesn’t change what I hear. If I am not using those other measurements to make EQ decisions, what are they good for? If I am using them, then I must be deviating from whatever my ideal curve is at the listening position. Look, I have done this both ways. For live sound reinforcement in a large room, I take multiple measurements to get an EQ compromise. Then I play music I am familiar with and walk all around the room. The goal is as good as possible sound for everyone. In my home room, the goal is to get it as close to perfect as possible for just me. What’s going on a few feet away doesn’t matter. If my head has moved two feet, I fell out of my chair. Wavelength at 100hz is nearly 12 feet. Bass nulls are not going to be inches apart, or even two feet apart.No need to average if more distant microphone positions are set -- a simple overlay graph would suffice -- but it would be interesting to see how something like UMIK-X would work in that scenario, too.
For example: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...udyssey-xt32-vs-dirac-live.29890/post-1124745
Some bass loss and off-axis coloration esp. at the more extreme angles... Could also maybe use one or two more additional PEQs... I think. While it's nice to have objectively good results at one MLP, it would be even better if most of the room actually sounded well balanced -- where nothing in particular sticks out too much.
When looking at a group of measurements, and as Kal mentioned, even having the microphone set two feet apart all around would be more informative (either averaged or not) than a single point IR.