HTupolev

That's not a very useful way to frame the size of a gearing jump. 40gi-to-48gi and 80gi-to-88gi are both jumps of 8gi, but the former will have twice the impact on cadence and torque because it's a ratio change of 1.20 while the latter is only 1.10. The "only 3.5gi apart" of your 20->23->26->30 gears are shifts of 15%, 13%, and 15% respectively, which aren't all that small. With an 11-speed drivetrain, for instance, you could achieve comparable if not slightly better spacing at the low-end with something like a 52-36 paired with an 11-42 cassette. Although, it could easily be argued that such a setup would still make compromises compared with your 3x9 (slightly lower top-end, mildly wider shifts across much of the range, bigger front shifts, may require unusual RD configuration to achieve good behavior).

I do agree that wide-range setups where spacing is still a concern is a big blind spot for modern gearing. For me, that sticks out on my gravel setup, where I'm trying to have a reasonably-fully-fledged road drivetrain with decent spacing alongside super-low bailouts. Currently I have a 3x8, with 48-38-24 cranks paired to an 11-13-15-18-21-24-28-32 cassette. In the foothills it behaves like an old-school wide-range triple, but the two larger chainrings 1.5-step the cassette, so tight shifts are available on the road when I want them. In theory it's worth up to ~19 unique useful gear ratios, although once cross-chain aversion and my riding style are accounted for, it's realistically more like 17. And those 17 ratios are quite well-distributed on the range.
I've spreadsheeted out comparisons to modern alternatives, and even with 12-speed cassettes and two chainrings, it's really hard to assemble something that wouldn't make any compromises.