>One hypothesis is there's a lot more to computation and we'll be discovering what we're missing in that regard. Another hypothesis is not all value added is computational in nature. There may be leaps of other kinds, based in aesthetics and heuristics, that defy capture in "by rote" or "mechanical" steps ("just follow this recipe and you're guaranteed at least as good odds" -- we don't have that and it's a hypothesis to guess we even could in principle).
You would have to say what you mean by "computational" to even make sense of this. But even so, you've missed a possibility, which is that the basics of computation are understood, but that the vast spaces of possible "algorithms" (or info processes) firmly based on those basics is not well understood and may not be for a long time. Perhaps never, it is an infinite space after all. That doesn't require that there be "a lot more to (the basics of) computation" or else it must be "non-computational", if that was what you meant to imply.