I am not an expert but I'll give you my two cents.
I don’t own an i1Pro with UV filter, but I own a ColorMunki. I never understood how similar this 2 instruments are, I read many different opinions. I also made a “comparative test” in the past: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50214.0
I made some profile, using Argyll and starting from the same 2000 patches, with the i1Pro (with and without FWA compensation) and ColorMunki.
I used a GrafiLite Mode (Ott-Lite, see this: http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/007Ue2
) and natural solar light to look at the prints (I printed a test image with RelCol and AbsCol from Photoshop with BPC for each profile). I think that the best prints where the one made from the i1Pro –f profile (Argyll FWA compensation). They looked more neutral that the one from the ColorMunki and the one from the i1Pro without FWA, in the BN I saw no particular cast in the –f profile.
I did this simple and stupid test.
This is the test image:
Made with Canon 1D Mark III, 24/70 2,8, DNG profile using CC Passport. Light from the window.
Image is ProPhotoRGB, 16bit, opened in Photoshop.
Print made with an Epson 790, OEM Ink, Hanhemuhle FA Baryta paper.
The paper has some OBAs, as you can see using this online plotting tool: http://www.pusztaiphoto.com/articles/printing/spectrums/webchart.aspx
The upper part is a print made with i1Pro, ArgyllCMS and FWA compensation ON (for D50 illuminant).
The lower part is a print made with the ColroMunki. The profile, the test chart, all the setting where the same. Both the profiles have very good DeltaE 2000, max is below 1,5 (and average is in both profile below 0.6), i1Pro profile is a little bit better comparing numbers.
Here you can see the BW part of this image “averaged” with Photoshop.
The image that you see here is in sRGB space, the reported values are from the original file (ProPhotoRGB).
As you can see my impression of a bluish cast in the CM profile is confirmed by the data. I don’t know how the i1Pro UV Cut would behave, but asking several people I trust, I always got suggestion about buying an instrument with no filter, so that the “profiling program” could care of OBAs. Graeme Gill (ArgyllCMS author) recommends to use non-filtered instruments: http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/FWA.html