I don't claim it being a software only issue, only much more a software issue than photographers in general tend to believe. The problem as I see it is that photographers ditch cameras based on color rendition without first ever trying making their own profile. It's hard to blame them though, the availability of easy to use and still good profiling software is limited.
I have indeed my own software,
http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/dcamprof.html, but I'm not claiming it's easy to use. I'm well aware of Image Engineering's products, as my own profiling software is capable of processing SSFs. SSF-based profiles targeted for specific spectral data of your particular interest are very nice indeed, but it requires expensive gear to measure (or ebay stuff and DIY electronics skill). Traditional target profiles do quite well too.
I doubt Lightroom's profiles are currently designed that way, many (most?) of the ones I've seen apply looks and are not that accurate, and the type of accuracy errors is not related to using a spiky fluorescent source as calibration illuminant (which indeed is not a good idea) but are rather "look" tunings. I haven't seen all their profiles though and I have noted design has changed over the years.
Anyway, I think it's wrong to draw conclusions on a camera's color performance based on default rendering in some raw converter, and that's exactly what photographers do all the time.
Obviously profiling is a research area for me though, lots of things still to discover so I may change my views with more knowledge. Some aspects of photography reminds me of my HiFi audio days though, were people could absolutely hear a difference of the direction of cables to speakers (except in blind testing of course but that does not count in their world). I think I see a few of those things in photography too, but one could always say my eyes are bad...