I looked into the relationships between plate mode frequencies and arch shapes back when I wrote the series of articles on 'free' plate tuning for 'American Lutherie' magazine back in '91-'92. It's impossible to cover all the bases in a short series like that, but the principles are clear.
Basically, arched plate stiffness is a function of the arch height, arch shape, and wood thickness, along with the actual properties of the wood, of course. Curvature of the plate surface adds bending stiffness, as we all know: just roll a sheet of paper into a tube and try to bend it. Differing arch shapes alter the frequency relationships between the low order modes somewhat. Overall arch height primarily affects the frequency of one particular mode. Changing the thickness of the plate in a specific spot can change things too, depending on whether a given resonant mode is bending in that spot or moving a lot without bending much. Local changes in thickness of small areas will most likely tend to change higher-order modes that vibrate as groups of smaller areas, and this can be difficult to see or hear directly, although it almost certainly affects the timbre of the instrument. The one brace that's used on the violin, the 'bass bar', seems mostly to compensate for the stiffness that's lost in the top when the f-holes are cut in, at least, in terms of the low order resonant modes. Any adjustment you make in this system will alter the timbre in some way, but the relationships are complex.
None of this is particularly relevant to most Classical guitar makers or players. Although there are Classical guitars with carved arched backs, and even a few with carved arched tops, they are rare. It's difficult to make an arch top Classical that has a timbre that works well for the standard repertoire, and since it's a lot of extra work, and Torres didn't do it, not many people make them.
Although most Classical guitar tops are domed to some extent, it's not really enough of a curve to make much difference in the way the top vibrates. Classical guitar makers do adjust local thickness of the top to some extent, but most of what violin makers do with arching we do with bracing.
Keep in mind, too, that on violins the tension of the strings is taken up by a tailpiece that attaches to the end block; the bridge is pretty much simply down loaded, and the leverage of the neck is carried by the entire top and back, which are relatively much thicker than guitar plates. I can't recall ever seeing a successful Classical guitar that did not have a fairly substantial transverse brace on the top above the sound hole to help keep the neck from pitching forward. I have read of various 'flying brace' schemes that do away with the upper transverse brace, but these have not caught on widely. That brace, in itself, has a major effect on the way the top of the guitar works acoustically, producing a much different appearing set of resonant modes from those seen on an arched plate, and altering the significance of the various modes.
All of which is just to say that violins and guitars are vastly different systems, and it's risky using one as a guide to the other. I do find 'area tuning' of violin tops to be interesting in some ways, and see how some aspects of it might transfer to the guitar. However, the way I understand the physics of plate motion doesn't agree well with the subjective descriptions I've read in the articles I've seen on area tuning. It's often very difficult to translate that sort of 'tacit knowlegde' into 'explicit knowledge' that can pass physical muster. They're hearing something, and claim to have found ways to use what they're hearing to control the tone of their instruments, but the claims are hard to establish with any rigor, and the causal chains are unclear.
Of course, much the same can be said of any system the purports to control the tone of a guitar....