Research has been done on the CMCC for quite some time now. One of the less tangible reasons that the CMCC still fascinates those interested is that there is still disagreement among experts as to the geologic history of the complex.  For a long time, standard thrusting models were used to explain the structure of the complex.  Thrusting of precambrian continental granodiorite and supracrustals had been the accepted model of the complex.  However, there were certain Miocene basin deposits that were kinematically at odds with traditional thrust model.  These radial, tilt-block basin conglomerates can only be adequately modeled by invoking tectonic extension with concomitant listric-normal faulting and gravity sliding (downslope, of course).  This model theorized by researchers at UCLA and MIT, is explained by G. H. Davis and P. J. Coney in USGS Memoir 153, 1980.  In addition to George Gehrels, Jon E. Spencer, Stephen J. Reynolds, and Stephen M. Richard, G. H. Davis is an expert on the CMCC (If you manage to track down and catch Dr. Davis with free time (HA!), you will find he is really cool, 'down-to-earth', and smart.  In fact, these guys are most approachable Ph.D.'s I know).  Enough of the hero worship.  Anyway, in a nutshell, during the late Cretaceous, tectonic blocks of precambrian continental granodiorite and overlying platform sedimentation was thrust largely eastward.  Then, during the mid-Tertiary, tectonic extension caused this allochthon to gravity-slide in an opposing direction.  Isostatic rise of the autochthon (the core gneiss) due to a deep crustal root, mylonitized the rock in the vicinity of the decollement.

Although some workers still discount the necessity of mid-Tertiary extension and tilt-block basins required to explain all features of the complex, their surface maps are used because these maps are, barring cross section depictions, largely accurate and thus useful for this endeavor.