Ok, I believe I understand your point, and I believe I "know" the answer.
Test prints made with both profiles resulted in essentially identical prints, as viewed under my fairly bright somewhere around 4000K environment. So my conclusion is the actual rgb values fed to the printer in perceptual intent (I didn't try much with relative or sautration) at least in the high mid-tones were also close to identical. The only way to do a truly "honest" print comparison would be to have a strong uv presence for the print done via the i1Pro-normal and a weak uv source (my actual viewing environment) on the print done via the i1Pro-uvcut. Assuming the illumination was otherwise identical I would have different print appearances, and I might well have good softproof results with both profiles.
But that's truly the issue, we don't generally view prints with illuminants containing strong uv. Almost every profile I've examined from paper manufacturers (at least for those papers with OBAs) was obviously created with a uvcut instrument, i.e. the white point was much less "blue" than anything I could detect using an i1Pro-normal. So given that we don't had the capability to do some sort of sophisticated mix of targets measured with and without uv detection, a uvcut instrument may usually provide the "best" solution, at least in terms of matching the softproof of papers with OBAs.
If I'm correct then this is as much a problem with PMP as i1Profiler, more an issue with the whiteners used in resin coated papers. And I never found much improvement using the OBA correction in PMP, the few times I tried it both ways I couldn't tell any difference. To be really honest, I've had past issues with softproofing in terms of the yellowish tendency, and it's only now using an uvcut instrument that I seem to have better results. Of course, that could be due to several factors, including my eyeballs.