But the real, native color space of the camera may change every time you make a picture
The color space of the camera is given by the spectral responses of the sensels, thus it is fixed.
camera profiles are describing the camera behavior only in synthetic circumstances, so we can't really say that camera profiles are RAW profiles
What "camera profiles" do you mean? There is no generic camera profile
; the profiles are raw processing specific. The same camera can be described by different profiles.
For example what is synthetic in ACR's camera profile relating to a specific camera?
We have different camera profiles for different occasions - for example modern Nikon Cameras have 9 different camera profiles, and each of these profiles has 20 variants for different illuminants - that makes 180 camera profiles! And in my opinion we can't say that any of these profiles is a "real RAW profile"
1. There is no point to distinguish between "camera profile" and "raw image profile". The raw image data is the incarnation of the camera's image characteristics.
2.These are neither "raw profiles", nor "camera profiles"; they are a combination of camera profiles and custom transformations. I don't know how to name them. The same with Adobe's profiles, particularly the DNG profiles.
Anyway, think of this: one can create such colors with these profiles, which are not reproducable by the camera (like "false colors"). Do you think, that these profiles really expand the gamut of the camera?
Certainly changes with different lens and filter combinations.
Do you agree, that the effect of lens and filter is equivalent to changing the illumination? (The same filter could be on the lamps!)
In effect you are saying, that the camera's characteristics depend on the illumination. This is equivalent to stating, that the camera's characteristics depend on the depicted objects. Do you think that the camera's color space is narrower when capturing a checker board than when capturing a colorful scenery?