I'm going back to the 80's when we were represented by Koteen & Burt for our stations in Puerto Rico and we got a "memo of interpretation" about both ascertainment and "community of license". The point was that for ascertainment just interviewing "leaders" in the city of license was not enough as the FCC had made the concept more vague by changing "city" to "community"."Community" still has a specific meaning, and it's not synonymous with "metro area" or "market." At some point, perhaps the FCC might be persuaded to license stations to a market instead of a specific community, but for now it still maintains a distinction, at least on paper, between "Los Angeles" and "Pasadena" or "Glendale" or "Santa Monica," even if it makes no real-world difference anymore.
The recommendation was that "we serve our community from our particular city so that both are considered". That meant ascertainment in the stations primary coverage area, not just the city or community of license.
That was before the ID rules were relaxed to allow the addition of other cities after the city of license, which was, of course, a further relaxation on the concept of "city" of license and the inclusion, by interpretation, of the coverage area beyond the city licensed to.
As we now have no requirement to even have an office or studio in the licensed town, it's obvious that the FCC is more focused on coverage areas than specific towns.
I would guess that the next step will be to allow the needless Legal ID to be done with some type of data burst, perhaps similar to the PPM encoding technique. Most stations, save the most traditional and heritage ones, use names to brand themselves and not call letters... so it makes sense to eliminate the aural ID requirement.