lol Sorry Azi that wasn't really clear.
If you use 2 soils, like most do, or at least 2 different topdressings for veg & flower, then I think one for veg and one for flower is a fantastic idea.
If you use one soil like me, a combined mix is probably best, but a pure flower mix has me curious.
The Rev's soil mix, which got me started, is touted as a flower mix, and one day I came up one 2gal pot short on veg dirt so I used Rev's mix as a veg mix and added veg spikes.
It grew a tad better than my veg mix. I have never looked back since.
I suppose if I put a bunch of time and effort into it, I could come up with a better veg mix, but I like my one mix that I flex with spikes and a bottom nitro dusting.
I don't rely on ewc for its nutrients, although they do have a longterm accumulative effect on my soil, I use them mainly for a good bioavailable calcium source and as a microbial innoculant.
My soil is complete all on its own. I really just want the calcium from the ewc.
I do add a topdressing of high P bat guano in early flower, and its in both my one veg tea and one flower tea.
My science tells me the weed comes out the same with or without the guano topdressing, but I have always done it and don't want to change my mix.
Personally from my point of view, one soil and one full broad spectrum ewc is my choice, but seperate ones for a veg & flower soil system makes sense too.
Sounds like a side-by-side is in your future!
If I were you, and I'm not telling you what to do at all, and I don't know your system at all, but glancing at it, I think your carbon could be better.
By that I mean you should be using fully composted carbon in your mix and then adding fresh carbon at time of planting.
I think your carbon levels are too high and here are my concerns why.
1. Partially decomposed carbon hogs nitro.Period. Its a bio-chemical reaction you can't stop.
2. Fresh carbon gets eaten by a microbe or a fungii as they need about 50% carbon in their diet. This causes them to flourish and breath out fresh CO2.
3. Carbon holds about 4 times its mass in water. Thats a beautiful thing when in balance, but at higher levels, even though your soil doesn't feel too wet as the carbon is storing the water, if that water wasn't there then air would be.
Its a ratio thing. Lose some carbon and the air to water ratio slants in airs favor.
The dry matter of a plant is 47% carbon and 43% oxygen 4% hydrogen, so the air is more important than the water.
Sips adds air and look at what you get. Less carbon will add air yet again.
Also here is how both carbon and nitrogen cycle. When a microbe consumes either, 1/3 goes to the microbe, 1/3 gets fixed into the soil, and 1/3 gets released to atmosphere.
That way a dead tree or fish or a leaf can feed microbes, plants, and put an equal amount into the atmospheric bank, where you will withdraw it during growing.
So all that carbon in your composted leaf matter gets cut to 1/3 its amount as plant food.
That tremendously lowers your carbon ratio in growing season so you need to add more at planting time, but not high nitro ingredients as you don't want the new carbon to compost, you want the microbes to eat it without combining nitro into it.
What nitro is needed, as its always needed, must now come from the air, where you banked it earlier during the cooking stage.
You don't want composting nitro at this point. It should already be in your soil.
Composting nitro is essential too, you can't pull it all from the air or the bank runs dry, and composting nitro brings in and fixes all your proteins you will need later.
Atmospheric nitro powers processes, not feed the plant. Getting it greens you up because processes get increased, not because your plant is eating it.
Thats a bit more than a flower ewc answer but its 4am and I'm lonely.
All that being said, your nutrient soil system caught my eye as one of the coolest and best ones I have seen anyone try, and once its dialed in it could, and likely is, a game changer, so I would love to see you work out the bugs now so I don't have to later
.
I'm not sure if you are aware of this but all carbon sources are rated on their density.
Leaves sit right on the line between dense and too dense, but the minerals in them make them the best. (My humble opinion)
They contain more carbon than a lot of other sources so they take longer to fully decompose, and being denser you need less to get enough carbon AND hold the right ratio of water.