Not a whole lot of progress has been made. There are still some pretty big hurdles to decipherment. It's not impossible that significant progress can be made, but it's not looking too good. Here's the situation:

Sign values
The sign values seem to be correct when transferred from Linear B to Linear A. It results in a vocabulary heavy with A,I,U, but weak in E and O. This accords with other known languages, so it's at least a known phenomenon. Plus the commodity ideograms are consistent with Linear B, so at least those can be identified.

On the other hand, there aren't any really identifiable place names in the text that accord with known place names. Is KU-NI-SU the Minoan pronunciation for Knossos? Or is it the word for barley? There's no way to tell at present. Across Crete and the Greek mainland, there are place names ending in -ssos and -nthos, which predate the Greeks on the mainland (it's a non-Greek, maybe non-IE ending). So why aren't they evident in Linear A? Is it a sound that they used -u for? Even if they did, there's no Amnisos, and maybe no Phaistos (there's a dubious but doubtful entry), and these pre-Greek names are present in Linear B from Crete. So they should've been in Linear A.

So maybe some sign values that are attributed are wrong, although statistical analysis suggests that they should basically be correct. So maybe there are nuances to pronunciation that are unclear, or maybe Linear A orthography is different from that of Linear B (unlikely, because of transmission of writing is direct from Minoans to Mycenaeans. But still possible).

Decipherment vs Translation
So Linear A can basically be read, but not translated. When Michael Ventris applied his sign values to Linear B, it readily popped out as obviously Greek. But with values applied to Linear A, nothing happens. There's no real connection to any known language. The word for total is almost certainly KU-RO (with the r- signs functioning for both r- and l- values), but that doesn't help all that much, since it's a stretch to associate that with another language or language family.

And that's where problems normally occur. It's easy for curious scholars to play the word association game. This word kind of looks like another word in Akkadian if you just change this vowel to that vowel. And if you do that, then these other couple of words look like these Akkadian words, but you just have to assume X exception and change this sign value. And before you know it, you have Linear A 'deciphered' if you just make changes to every single word. This happens all the time in decipherment attempts, which is why so many people are convinced that they have deciphered Linear A.

Length of texts
So not only can the words not be translated, but there's almost no hint of grammar or syntax anywhere. The libation tables have long inscriptions, but they're all almost identical. Without any contrasting texts, it's difficult to identify what's going on grammatically.

The rest of the texts are terse. One-word lists. And it's not clear what those words even are. They could be place names, commodities, personal names, official titles, or something else entirely. And it's clear that they're not consistent. For example, let's say you assume all entries on a tablet are consistent (all entries on a tablet are place names, for example). So you assume that the entries on Tablet 1 are from Category A. Then all other tablets with those same entries are also all from Category A. And all the tablets with all of those entries are also all from Category A. You've soon covered the entire corpus and demonstrated that every single entry is from Category A. Unlikely.

So they have to be mixed. Some place names, some personal names, some commodity names, etc. And there's no way of knowing which is which. A stable corpus of categories could help, but that's also difficult to get at.

So what is there?
There are some potential inflectional things going on that could potentially help. A few words seem to have some variants, such as KU-MBA-NU, KU-MBA-AN-TU, KU-MBA-NA-TU-NA, and KU-MBA-NA-TU-NA-TE. There are some parallels to those variants in Semitic languages. There are also a couple of Minoan divinities mentioned in the Linear B texts named pi-pi-tu-na and a-ma-tu-na, so maybe there's something there.

Additionally, the libation tables consistently have the entry a-sa-sa-ra-me or ja-sa-sa-ra-me. There's been some work there on identifying it either as a divine name or a verb for dedication. And many tablets begin with the word A-DU, which could therefore mean something like 'transaction' or 'received' or 'sent out'.

But that's basically the form of most inroads. Hints here and there about a word, but nothing that catalyzes the reaction required for decipherment.

Summary
This isn't an exhaustive list, but a reasonable description of the state of affairs. It doesn't seem to resemble any known language, has only tenuous ties to any language family, and the terse texts don't allow entry to grammar, syntax, orthography, or lexicon. Attempts to stretch understanding any further meet with only moderate success, at best.

There are a few things that could help with further understanding. The biggest would be more texts, preferably with longer entries. Nobody's really holding their breath for that one. There's good evidence that the Minoans used ephemeral materials as well for record keeping. Significant sites continue to be excavated, but no massive archives or deposits yet.

The sign values have been analyzed and reanalyzed (some individually, but also statistically), but could probably use yet another thorough vetting. It's not too likely to produce any results, but you never know. For example, if someone was just poring over entry after entry analyzing word structure, and saw a pattern at the end of words that could equate to the -ssos and -nthos endings, that could be a significant breakthrough. But this has also been addressed and attempted without positive results. Those sorts of revelations are possible though. Maybe analysis by people who study machine language learning could help.

The fractional system is also not entirely figured out. There seem to be at least a couple fractional systems at work, depending on what is being counted (if I'm not mistaken, proto-Elamite has something like six systems at work simultaneously). If these could be figured out, it could be a significant breakthrough in the categorization of terms. But again, it's been attempted a few times with no success.

Collaboration with scholars of scripts in other fields could also help. Again, it's been attempted before. But it's always possible for scholars in other areas to see things in a way that you wouldn't otherwise see, due to background, training, and the material you work with. It's a difficult collaboration to arrange, and disappointing when little comes of it, given the effort required to get up to speed.

Maybe progress could be made by a consortium of expert in ancient administration, archival practices, linguistics, dialects, and multiple ancient languages and/or scripts. But it's not looking good.

It's like if I gave you a list and asked you to translate it. The list says:

flork 3
celpins 49.7
uentrary 1

Now translate. You got nothing about word endings, nothing about inflection, nothing about grammar or syntax. You have fractions, but are the things in the list being counted? Or are they giving or receiving that many units of something? You just couldn't do it. You'd need much more material.

So yeah, it's possible that there will be progress. But it requires massive effort for a minuscule possibility of return. So don't hold your breath unless a massive tablet deposit is unearthed.

TL;DR Sign values were applied after the decipherment of Linear B. Sign values appear to be correct. They make it clear that Linear A doesn't represent anything resembling a known language.