Edmund, I can't believe you are suggesting this...
Go ahead, educate me
The file I referred to is Lab.
I never believed in the subtleties of monitor calibration testing anyway - I just take a Colorchecker, and a pair of female eyes, and mine own eyes, and look at the hard sample (Solux lamp or daylight), and the display sample, and compare. Yes, Elvis, there is such a thing as white adaptation.
Of course, I use a Colorchecker file in which I've painted in the *measured* values of my own Colorchecker chart rather than the generic average file referred to above. But I don't think the OP has a spectro.
Back when I was doing this more seriously, I used more complex tests using a spectro, but found these reflect reality less well -for me- than actual eyeballing as above. Amongst other problems with the measuring is the widely neglected fact that spectros and screens are polarized.
With two screens (Eizo, Samsung) on my desk, and a sample, a decent match among all three can be achieved if the white of one screen is measured and used to calibrate the other. Jack's Coloreyes software did this well already in the previous version.
By eyeballing you get a very good handle on the hues, *in a comparison*. Luminance gradation is a different game but maybe at this stage you have enough information to ridicule me already, and the OP has hung up out of boredom
PS. Of course you can run various "evaluation" routines provided with the colorimeter software too; I am sure these are of interest to the makers of such software , and they trust their tests - I tend to trust my eyes first, in a *comparison*, and then to a more limited extent my spectros. Colorimeters are consumer products.