The tendency lately, even without stems, is
[Standard] which would be for the standard digital release - CD, download, etc.
[Vinyl] which is pretty obvious - wider dynamic range, concentration on the sum/difference relationship (no excessive low end in the difference, no excessive sibilance in the sum, etc.), higher resolution, no dithering (black is BLACK and not dither noise), etc., etc.
[MFiT - Mastered for iTunes / iTunes PLUS] which has a higher crest factor *and* a lower peak, as each (longer word length / higher bit-depth) file is converted to AAC, scrutinized post-conversion for inter-sample peaks and then the high-res files that made the "successful" AAC files are used as the master for MFiT/iTP and the AAC files are used as a client reference.
[High-Resolution - PCM, FLAC, etc.] Similar to the MFiT files (higher crest / lower peak), but without regard to the peak (assuming the peak is still comfortably below -0dBFS). Usually the "as-captured" volume - The volume the music was asking to be (for lack of a better term), as captured from the analog chain with no additional processing or limiting, again exported without dither in 24-bit. Much of the time, you can add "high-res"
[MP3] files to that also. Not to be confused with high-res audio like 24-bit FLAC or PCM, but a set of MP3's at 256-320kbps, pulled directly from the 24-bit EDL. Usually for advance purposes (previews, radio blasts, etc.). Then goofy stuff like album artwork and meta data being embedded directly into the MP3 and FLAC files as if they're used pre-release and database propagation, that info/images won't be able to be drawn from those databases.
That's a typical 'package' for a label or reasonably established self-managed artist.
Throw stems in -- Even just [vocal] and [instrumental] stems and you can figure a "standard" and "high-res" version of the instrumental and possibly an a'capella (vocal only), although that's fairly rare.
Maybe i am looking in the wrong direction for mastering services. You seem to be going 180 degree off center with what other Professional Mastering Studios are saying that I do know. This will be my last comment on this thread. Keep with the times or get left behind. It is just that simple. I hope the best to the original Poster. Sorry your thread got off topic.
As much as I hate the "loudness war" going on, I'm deep,
deep in those trenches. I've put out some of the loudest recordings I've ever heard. But the "war" is a pissing contest between artists and labels (and other artists and labels). The public never asked for it.
That said - As mentioned - I (and most mastering engineers) have invested relatively ridiculous sums into gear that can handle relatively ridiculous levels - in part, so we won't "get left behind" (as you put it) and of course, in part because it's friggin' awesome gear. But it doesn't change the fact that "war volume" is an afterthought -- Something done almost under protest. Rarely (if ever) because it's what best serves the recording...
I'd bet that plenty of the "old-timers" here remember just maybe a little over a decade ago, when every kid with headphones and a maul-the-band compressor had a "mastering" service. All they talked about was "loud" -- And they got left behind.