I'm with Jaguar. My recipe, or really the title of my recipe, indicates my desired type of beer. I'm striving to make something specific with a particular flavor profile. To that end I have a list of ingredients and processes that are intended to produce the target beer. A brew session is an attempted execution of that recipe. It will be imperfect---I will make mistakes, or there will be natural variation. Each session will therefore miss my target by some amount. So, I might brew the same version of the recipe several times until I think I've gotten the process "perfect".
But, I may find that there is an issue with a process or an ingredient that is affecting my ability to hit my target flavors. As a result, I will make modifications to the recipe (ingredients and planned processes) to strive towards my target beer. This iteration results in a new "version" of the recipe. Again, I may brew this version of the recipe several times perfecting my ability to follow the recipe. And, so on...
The point of the above is that I'm continuing to work towards producing a specific beer...which is indicated by the "title" more than any other part of the recipe. If I have a concept of "sessions" which are attached to the recipe (more specifically to a particular VERSION of the recipe) then I can see the progression of the results and their impact on the recipe as time marches on. But, I have one single container that holds all of the data from every single attempt to brew this specific beer. If all this data is contained together into a single container (call it a "beer" which is made up of a recipe, and a set of sessions) then I can see the progression of that beer through time. I can see each session, and each version of the recipe, and the resultant flavors, and why I chose to make a specific change, and how that change affected the following versions of the beer.
History is a powerful tool if your are given the ability to see through it. Just like in real life, it takes some analysis and connecting of the dots to be able to learn the lessons that history can teach. It CAN be done using duplicated recipes and a naming convention of sorts, and segregation between recipe and batches. That's attempting to effect the same outcome. But, the reason we do that is because the software doesn't give us a metaphor for the concept that we have in our brain: we are attempting to make a beer, by conceiving a recipe, and executing that recipe. Then we iterate (because we didn't get it right the first time).
Predicting the "fermentability" is hard, actually its impossible. In actuality, today it is very hard end up with a "partially" fermentable wort. You can "think" you control it through mash time, and temperature...but, in reality...modern base malt has so much diastatic power that its actually hard to stop the enzyme action before all the starch has been converted. There are some malt experts who will tell you that the starch is converted within 15 minutes in a well milled sample. This is especially true anywhere in the middle of the mash temp zone (150-ish). Today's base malts have enough enzymes to convert 3-5 times their own mass.
So, even if you run them really hot and denature them quickly...odds are that it will convert before the enzymes can denature. this is true as long as the base malt makes up 50% or more of the grist. I made a batch recently that was only 1/4 base malt (American 6-row). Even that mash was converted in less than an hour, and finished completely dry down at 1.010. So, a lot of times we are fooling ourselves into thinking we have more control than we really do.
You will have better control over FG through yeast selection, fermentation temperature, and filtering to remove the yeast than through mash temperature and time.