Yes, I did read. I understand that you produce software for resampling images for printing so you have a certain agenda to push. That's fine, btw, I'm not criticising you or suggesting anything negative about your software (in fact, it's well reviewed from what I've seen).
I know what the LUT is for, the point is that the entire process is more complex than some people (note - I've made a point of being broad in my comments because they are NOT targetted at you specifically) choose to suggest.
You need to stop taking comments made in a public thread to be solely directed at you, mate. They're not. They're general comments made regarding the entire discussion.
Your utility reports the 11880 at 360 unless "Finest detail" is ticked in the driver in which case it reports 720. No surprises there.
What you're apparently suggesting, having read through your site, is that your resampling gives a better result than sending images to the printer at other ppi or resampling using the likes of Photoshop. I haven't tested your software, so I can't comment.
When I have time, I'll install your software and do some prints and run some blind tests to see if people can pick the differences.
My recommendation, though, is that people send data anywhere from 180 to 480 and they will have excellent results and won't be able to pick the difference except under a loupe. In fact, 120 is fine in some cases, but I would avoid it generally.
FWIW, I'm not guessing about this stuff, but doing the test with your software will be interesting for sure.