There's literally nothing stopping you from doing that on profiles that you're working on, so long as they aren't project protected or face an encumbrance from another member. I'd recommend that you just give it a try, rather than seeking approval for creating a new standard that will affect everyone: Often it's best to demonstrate for others a useful idea, since nothing is written in stone - and best practices evolve over time.
You'll find numerous examples of profiles with other sections beyond the minimal 2. And there are other commonly used sections besides "Research Notes", e.g. "Legacy" on Thomas Jefferson (and several others) to describe an individual's post-mortem impact. Other profiles might have a "Slaves" section to facilitate information discovery by the descendants of the enslaved via their former owners. And because profiles are dynamic, I've even seen temporary "⚠ Work in Progress" sections to explain current work being done, as on Martin Van Buren Sr's profile.
It's a challenge, dealing with real people and historical data: It's hard to have a one-size-fits-all solution to everything. Some things can apply to everything: e.g. a biography to summarize what's known and a sources section to explain how we know it. But the more use-cases that we try to fit, the more convoluted the situation becomes, as described in the xkcd comic, "Standards": https://xkcd.com/927/
In other words, not everything needs to become a standard.
So consider the options: Just make your own "Records" or "Transcription" section. Alternatively, consider doing it as a subsection of one of the main sections: Just use 3 equal signs instead of two, described in the part about Additional Subsections. Or, if it's a lengthy document and relevant to multiple profiles, you could create a Free Space Profile to hold the transcribed information and then link to that in the references.
I hope this helps and offers a bit of insight. I definitely appreciate the idea of trying to include as much data as possible, although as mentioned, I don't think that we need a one-size-fits-all solution or standard to address the "how" at the present.