The question is if the prints were made using a Perceptual rendering intent in which there is no standard method and any profile package can season to taste. And the differences should be subtle, nothing that would account for the prints too dark issue. The engine in i1P IS different and IMHO is superior. But its not something that is going to leap off the page or make you think legacy profiles are “wrong”. In addition, unless the two samples used identical targets and measuring devices, you are now comparing apples and oranges. And i1P’s patch generation is not the same as PMP (its better). That said, you could, with some work, use that target reference in ProfileMaker Pro. So what this fellow told you, and what you saw are so undefined and the product is still being tweaked that basically you can’t take anything to the bank. When the product comes out, and when folks can do actual apples to apples comparisons (correctly), data points can be provided. But in no way are the older profile engines in any way responsible for the dark print issue which is mostly user error in terms of display calibration and/or print viewing conditions.