No Bill, I understand the point you're making quite well. I also understand the theory behind it. I don't care about the math. Understanding the math isn't necessary to understand the theory and use it in practical application. You disagree with that and that's fine. I simply disagree on the necessity of such a rigid workflow in all situations. And I disagree that such a rigid workflow is valuable in all situations. I've said before; and if you actually take the time to read you'd realise, that I do believe there are times when as close a scene-referred match as can be obtained is valuable. You're also, seemingly, ignoring the point that a scene-referred match doesn't correlate to an output-referred match (i.e., that the colours reproduced in the final output are a match to the colours in the original scene). To say nothing of the brightness range in the original scene that, depending on the range, may not be able to be reproduced by any output medium.
And while I disagree with the idea that an 'accuate' WB is the best way to achieve a proper scene-referred image and that a camera profile, similarly, is the Holy Grail I reference this from "Real World Color Management, 2nd Ed" by Fraser, Murphy & Bunting: "Camerra profiles are a bit more slippery. We've found that even with the best camera profiles, we'll still have to make significant edits to tone, and when camera metamerism rears its head, to color too." Further, the authors continue to state that a good camera profile is merely a 'nudge in the right direction'.
Let me ask you this, Bill. Given your strong preference for scene-referred colour 'accuracy', how did you ever operate in the film world?