You could argue that there was nothing to gain from the various hurricane reanalyses they've done over the years (some of which for the data is very sparse). The actual changes to the hurricane climatology have been more or less slight AFAIK. Yet they've done them over a long period and will probably keep doing them in the future.
Of course there are some differences. Tornadoes were a lot more underreported before the WSR88D network was complete, which massively increases uncertainty. Tropical cyclones don't suddenly dissipate with a new one forming shortly afterwards on the same track. They're much bigger and don't do weird things like split into multiple vortices which might fool people into thinking a new one's formed. The physical relationships are simpler and less dependent on subjective data.
But there are people right now writing and publishing papers making claims based on the offical tornado data, which is not that accurate especially if you want to do any kind of analysis that uses paths rather than points. Our pre-April 27 knowledge of what might be possible in Dixie Alley was significantly influenced by our knowledge of the outbreaks in 1884, 1908, 1920, 1932 and 1936. Whereas the early part of the official period was evidently rather quiet down there.
