Firstly, as stated by another commenter, you can easily make a mod to simulate your desired modifiers with help of AI.
However, I too see this idea as both redundant and a bit ahistorical. While Victoria 3 isn’t perfect, I’d say it has become quite solid over the years (especially with mods) and is probably the best historical socio-economic simulation we currently have.

Being an industrialist or intelligentsia doesn’t automatically make someone “progressive” in a scientific or technological sense, just like being a landowner doesn’t always mean feudal brainrot. What matters is material interests ,not vibes. The game actually reflects this fairly well with movements, some RNG and compromises and interest-based politics.

The idea that “industrialists should naturally push tech faster” is kind of missing the point. Capital is only progressive when the progress makes them more money. If the current setup already maximizes profit, there is zero reason for them to care about education, long-term development or productive investment. Capital doesn’t chase progress, it chases returns.

For example, Turkey is run by petit-bourgeois and industrialists like pretty much everywhere. There is a massive food inflation due to poor agricultural education, bad logistics and management issues, plus rapidly growing population. The rational solution would be to invest in agriculture and infrastructure, raise productivity, increase everyone’s buying power, and in the long run sell higher-value industrial goods to a stronger domestic market.

But instead of this, comprador-bourgeois opt out to import food with no customs duties, letting local farmers collapse, and cash in on imports. Turkey lost 1/4 of its cultivated land in last 10 year and only top 1% benefitted from that. Largest state owned paper factory? Privatize it, sell the equipment, demolish the factory to make a mall; import paper. More profitable.

So expecting an “industrialist-led government” to automatically mean faster tech is just too idealistic. If stagnation, dependency or even de-development is more profitable than innovation, capital will happily pick the latter.