Second run with same hardware but whitepoint set to native...and now weīre getting some where.
As for a native white point, it usually works well, because it requires less vcgt adjustments to profile the display effectively (meaning, the adjustments, contained in the monitor profile's own vcgt
tab, to the RGB curves that modify the CPU's video card's output table), thus avoiding the loss of too many of the 256 tonal levels, hence with a lower chance of visible banding.
Also, human vision is adaptive, which means that the white point on the screen will appear neutral to you after a short time needed for your vision to "reset" itself to the new white balance, and as long as there are no other light sources in your work environment's field of vision whose brightness exceeds and overpowers that of your monitor.
On the other hand, if your monitor is used in combination with a daylight viewing booth next to it for comparative viewing, then you cannot use the monitor's native
white point: instead, you will have to modify the monitor's white point to match that of the booth, otherwise, for example, one may look bluish and the other yellowish. That would be because your vision, faced with two mismatched white points, would no longer know which one to adapt to.
Besides their white points, the brightness levels of the two devices will also have to match, making it preferable to have a booth with a dimmer, since it's easier to match the booth's brightness to that of the monitor than the other way around, within limits, of course.
So, long story short: in the absence of a viewing booth, a native white point is very useful and serviceable.