It is interesting to know the applications that are making people stick to DOS and Win16, and also why they want the "seamless Win-OS/2 integration".
The rather weird context of a few individuals was already clear, but your goal wasn't. Applications had to be "really needed", apparently the slow video of DOSBox and buying Windows is an alternative, and happy users almost had to justify why they are satisfied. While not installing WinOS/2 and DOS isn't that hard. If a minority claims that DOS software is old, then I won't stop them from using a ported "RM * -R"
I may have started it, by pointing out that a return of DOS sound is important for the niche market of people finding their old collection of DOS games, with people perhaps failing to understand that pointing out the existence of a larger market is irrelevant for a niche market. AN itelf has used Win-OS/2 to promote their OS (in the case of Orly Airport, Paris, France). It's almost trolling to point out that DOS software is really, really old, while using and OS that may even be older than the DOS software in (virtual) question. Go figure...
It has no use to throw away working, (rarely and not rarely) used DOS and Win16 software. There's a Chomp for OS/2 (black & white) and there's a Chomp for Win-OS2 (colors). If you want to, you can install both. If you prefer the colors, then you can delete the even older OS/2 software and, unlike me, keep the Win-OS/2 version.
A generic problem of DOSBox is the slowlyness of its video, compared to OS/2 and SNAP, as already pointed out by Dave Yeo. Slowlyness (DOSBox) affects all applications, being mute (OS/2) affects less applications.
So: what's the dicussion? Does a minority emand that all users of DOS-based software delete their software? Even DOS sound for a niche market isn't a new develepoment. We used to have it.
A virtual business case involves a "modern" DOS game and modern hardware. We don't know if the game will work, if you'd try to promote some ArcaOS, the game will be mute, and there's DOSBox for Windows 10 too.
Regarding companies (what about governments and their lack of technical competition?): if I know a case of people still using Windows 3.1 and Windows 3.1, then I can promise you that I've already informed this rather random lead about, my reference, eComStation and Win-OS/2, and I'm not representing AN's marketing department. Niche market advertising will work better. AN is already aware of at least one well-known case, which can be used in advertising: the commercial French airport, which made the international news.
No list, which would include a classic Win-OS/2 app like PBRUSH.EXE. Because I'm not going to feed the opposition, if the DOS sound-inspired opposition still exists. And if I'd "prefer" MS Office, or "need" it, and outdated software has to be banned, then I'm already aware of Windows 10 and Office 365. The right order is that the opposition, if any, has to advocate why I have to delete my copy for Win-OS/2. Let's not reverse that. DOS support and Win-OS/2 is an asset, optional, which doesn't stop any new developments, and it makes no sense at all to delete working software "because it's old" (but possibly not as old as OS/2 itself).