(did search here before posting this.)
Here's what's so: The ICC specs (ICCv43_2010-12, pages 23 and 40) for V4 (Version Four) monitor profiles -requires- that the "wtpt" tag contain the Lab and temp information for D50, regardless of the actual target temp (usually D65) of the profile. (The "chad" tag is used to calculate the actual temp.) Thus, when you look at the "wtpt" tag in ColorThink, on your > D65 < monitor profile, it will say "5000K."
This requirement was not so in V2 icc monitor profiles, and so the convention became to insert the actual target temp & Lab in the "wtpt" tag. A V2 "wtpt" tag will show "6500K" for a D65 profile and "5000K" for a D50.
However, it is not "illegal" for the V4 requirements to be used in a V2 profile, since it was never specified... it's merely convention.
So: here's the situation - V TWO profiles created by Apple, and Datacolor show "6500K" and V TWO profiles created by X-rite show "5000K".
It appears, at the very least, however, that ColorThink uses the temp as reported in the "wtpt" tag when graphing the spaces. That leads to the situation shown in the attachment, below.
In that image, BOTH are V2 6500K monitor profiles, one with "wtpt" 6500K (as convention dictates) and the other with "wtpt" 5000K (as X-Rite chooses.)
As you can see, the white points are off by 1500K and the comparison fails.
I'm merely reporting this. I do not know what, if any, other problems this confusion of "wtpt" temps may cause outside of ColorThink.
Thoughts would be appreciated.
OH: I have thoroughly discussed this with X-Rite technical support, and I did suggest that they follow convention when creating V2 profiles. I've written to TechSupport at Chromix, and am awaiting a reply.