Keep in mind that the delta-e is comparing your Target (what you wanted to achieve) to the actual measurements after the calibration process is completed. Since the adjustment and result measurements are being taken by the same sensor, the delta-e value does not give any real indication of how "accurate" the sensor is. You could have a totally out-of-whack sensor, that when calibrated measures exactly what your Target intent was, and you would end up with a great delta-e value. However compared to what the "real" results are, as measured by a correctly functioning sensor, the delta-e would be huge.
Which is why I’ve been critical of these kinds of reports, from all nature of differing software products. I really think at best, they are a feel good report. At worst, it just confuses users.
The reports are kind of useful if you get a really awful dE value because, I don’t know, the puck fell off during the measurement (one would probably see that) or there was light leakage. And with such high values, you’d expect the previews to look awful. But over the years, more users have been sidetracked by this kind of ‘feature’ than anything else. It seems to be somewhat wasted engineering efforts unless someone can explain otherwise.
Now trending, that’s useful. I like to see that my delta’s have gone up because instead of calibrating once a month, I waited 2 months. Being able to see what the device does over time, using the same instrument of course is nice to see.
