It is easily supported by me but it would be a pain for people to actually use. You would need to make a unique material instance for pretty much every surface in the world and define the UV borders. Unless every surface in the world using it is a simple 0-1 flat square of the same size. Angles would require more math.
It is easy to turn it on for a small cube demo like that but then it only works for that cube shape.
If this is something you care about, you can easily add it yourself. It could even be a separate node it doesn’t matter where it comes from. I will even show you how, but I hope you will realize after trying to use it that this is more of a ‘demo mode’ feature and not something that usable in development. Unless there is some magical trick going on to make it work using arbitrary UV borders but so far I don’t think that is the case.
Even in the video you posted you can see the corners are not really correct you just see two separate surfaces clipping at different points so they don’t show the corners head on, instead they show the more flattering angle for the majority of the video. I feel that gives a a false impression that its more robust.
I am also suggesting that in most cases, pixel depth offset gives you the same results in a much more flexible way. The only case that doesn’t handle is exterior corners, which again the crytek method does not get right either. But it handles the surface hitting another surface like trim nicely.
I will look into PADM to see if its something different going on. Looks like its actually pushing pixels beyond the original silhouette so I am not sure exactly what is going on there.