I'm basically a rookie when it comes to WIS, but have played a lot of text-based sports sims in the past...
To me, it seems like the infallibility of the FSS is a bit ridiculous. There are countless examples of players who were expected to be superstars that didn't pan out (remember Felipe Lopez?) and an equal number of guys who no one wanted that ended up superstars (Steph Curry, anyone?). The thought of one scouting service being able to accurately peg 100% of HS prospects from D1 to D3 is obviously absurd.
At the same time, scouting on WIS is useful only in finding High/High vs Low/High potentials (aside from this small difference, you get little to no useful info from your scout). With a D3 recruiting budget, you are limited to scouting local players, and can often only afford a handful of scouting trips. Once again, scouts are always correct, and you often get the same message even after repeated scoutings. Yes, thank you head scout, it is tremendously valuable for you to tell me about how this kid I am recruiting as a center has low potential as a passer on 5 consecutive scouting trips. If a real scout went and watched a center and repeatedly reported only about his passing skills he would be fired immediately.
At the very least, you should be able to tell your scout what areas you would like information on. But, ideally, there should be some sort of confidence interval when it comes to recruiting ratings. For high level D1 prospects, the confidence rating should be somewhat high, after all, these guys are scrutinized by countless blogs/recruiting services. For lower level players, the confidence ratings should be shakier since the information is more limited.
Ideally, it would be awesome to have various ratings services that you could access. Perhaps some or all of these could be free. In this scenario, D3 recruits would only be rated by local recruiting services, while D1 level recruits would be rated by local/regional/national services. You could have multiple scouting reports on each player, and also have a consensus report. This way you would still get info on recruits, but it would be open for more interpretation.
You should also have a greater base knowledge of local recruits, with less info as distance from recruits increases. Obviously, if I am a D3 coach in Ohio, I should have some advantage when it comes to my knowledge of a kid ten miles down the road, compared to a team in NJ. And, your assistant coach should have some type of rating to determine his actual scouting ability. Many sims use a fairly simple model of rating assistants based on recruiting/scouting/player development. You could even eliminate hiring of assistants by basing this on time spent performing these activities. Say, at D3 you get one assistant who has to spend 100 minutes between the 3 activities. At D2 you get 2 assistants. At D1 you get 3. Or something to that effect.
The problem now, is that every single coach knows how good every single player is. Basically, the game can be fairly simply boiled down to a set of equations. Obviously, there is still some randomness at play, and a level of uncertainty as to how much each rating actually effects production....but, the ratings are infallible and you can fairly easily surmise which players will be better than other players at a glance. Reality is far messier.
There should be access to scouting reports. These should be somewhat accurate. But, there should be more room for error and interpretation. And, there should be situations where you can find diamonds in the rough that aren't obvious to everyone with FSS, and also chances to scout guys and realize that recruiting services probably have them overrated. It's just kind of amazing to me that Front Office Football: The College Years came out almost 10 years ago, and we still haven't had a game that improves upon it's recruiting/player development in the text-sim world.