So, according to Clark,
“The simplifications and approximations of the CIE standard date from the 1930s when people did not want to do hand calculations with negative numbers. Modern computers for at least the last 70+ years have no such limitations. The simplifications and approximations are now adding confusion and further approximations to a complex world as we move into better color display technology. These simplifications are holding back development and presentation of accurate perceived color. It is time to abandon the current CIE approximation models and get back to the fundamental underlying data on human perceived color.”
CIE 1931 XYZ is one of the two connection spaces used in ICC profiles. Every transform from one space to another goes through a connection space, and that is predominantly XYZ. I think there’s a lot of inertia behind the CIE reference, in tools and workflows, so changing it out would be onerous.
What’s interesting to me in the comparison is the degree of similarity across the years and methodologies. 17 subjects for Wright and Guild, 45 subjects for Stiles and Birch. Yes, there’s goofiness in the lower end of the high response, but the human sensitivities peak in about the same places. That starts to be statistically significant.
Color encoding in general purpose cameras is an approximation, based on three bandpass filters that roughly peak where the XYZ sensitivities peak. That’s the other consideration: for general purposes, would the difference be noticeable enough to warrant a switch?