I think one needs defining the context of the piece values: the traditional orthodox piece values are mostly used by humans to predict the end-game relative strength, excepting certain types end-games: if there are pawns left that may promoted, one pawn value down will normally draw, two may loose, three is a more certain defeat, but if there is no pawn to be promoted, at least five pawns ahead (rook plus king against king) are needed for a win. In middle game, one can add empirical reasoning, like 'knights strengthen (resp. weaken) in closed (resp. open positions)'.

So here there are usage several factors that need to be indicated: empiric for use by human reasoning, end game prediction, excluding certain types of end games, whether pawns can be promoted or not. The last factor does not traditionally alter the piece values, but their interpretation. 

For piece values used by computers, these can be more exact, but under what circumstances should the values apply? - To determine a local middle game fight, or determine overall material pressure, determine open development, or predict potential end-game capabilities? Perhaps different values should be given for different chess strategic positions. With that in hand, a computer might do more human like decisions, like 'in this situation, the sacrifice of this pawn is well compensated in the long term by position, but not the short one, so the best strategy here is to take it and give it back later'.

In Capa chess variations, one idea is to add material as to make end games less likely (though this may a change if the variation is learned thoroughly). Therefore, if position values are based upon games that rarely result in end games, perhaps that should considered 'middle game piece values'. And so on.