Asserting that some bases for comparison are “moral values” and others are merely “values” implicitly privileges a moral reference frame.
I don’t see why. The question of what makes a value a moral value is metaethical, not part of object-level ethics.
Again: if I decide that this hammer is better than that hammer because it’s blue, is that valid in the sense you mean it?
It isn’t valid as a moral judgement because “blue” isn’t a moral judgement, so a moral conclusion cannot validly follow from it.
Beyond that, I don’t see where you are going. The standard accusation of invalidity to judgements of moral progress, is based on circularity or question-begging. The Tribe who Like Blue things are going to judge having all hammers painted blue as moral progress, the Tribe who Like Red Things are going to see it as retrogressive. But both are begging the question—blue is good, because blue is good.
I don’t get it: any agent that fooms becomes superintelligent. It’s values don’t necessarily change at all, nor does its connection to its society.