Big fan of Matrix blocks, but they can easily become spatially extravagant when a block requires a large number of fields. Here’s a couple of ways that could _optionally_ be mitigated at the system designer's discretion:
i symbol does for Assets field instructions:<div> with a collection name:display:flex or display:grid within custom Control Panel CSS, as opposed to having to use more flaky techniques like float:leftdiv.fields, they have to be floated left of each other within a media query, and then the following field have that float cleared.display:flex.float:left with margins. It works but offends my sensibilities! The ‘People data to show’ row exploits the existing container with….matrixblock[data-type="item"] .checkbox-group {
display: grid;
grid-template-columns: repeat(5, max-content);
grid-gap: 1.5em;
}

I have no preference for how this is achieved but the size/sameness of every matrix has been one of its few weaknesses so something like this would be very welcome!
Re suggestion 2…
Using the Control Panel CSS plugin, I’ve managed to effectively lay out a Matrix field’s blocks with CSS Grid template areas (snapshot of Sass source and desired outcome attached). With that technique, there's plenty that can be done with the existing .fields > .field structure. So I think my second request above for a layout collection is redundant.
My first request for compact field instructions remains on my wish list though.


Just added the ability to customize the widths of Matrix sub-fields for the next Craft 3.5 release, similar to how normal fields’ widths can be customized (see https://github.com/craftcms/cms/issues/2644#issuecomment-656955838).


The idea for a compact UI mode is covered by #3407, so you can subscribe to that issue to follow along with progress.
Most helpful comment
Re suggestion 2…
Using the Control Panel CSS plugin, I’ve managed to effectively lay out a Matrix field’s blocks with CSS Grid template areas (snapshot of Sass source and desired outcome attached). With that technique, there's plenty that can be done with the existing
.fields > .fieldstructure. So I think my second request above for a layout collection is redundant.My first request for compact field instructions remains on my wish list though.