But it will not help as the way ACR treats images won't change.
Bullshit bud...while it's true that Thomas won't change things based on crackpot, half-baked ideas, Thomas is certainly willing to make major and substantial changes if somebody can prove to him he should...PV 2003 was the original pre DNG profile process version...which didn't change till PV 2010 which incorporated a lot of changes.
Then in PV 2012, a complete wholesale change to the processing was added. I would count this as proof positive that the ACR/LR engineers WILL make changes, sometimes massive, if somebody can prove what they are doing can be improved. Apparently, you've been unsuccessful in proving that to Thomas. I wonder why? Could it be your approach? Or could it be that Thomas doesn't think too much about your rants? In my experience, Thomas is almost always right, except when you can prove him wrong and then he's willing to turn on a dime because Thomas really does want to do the right thing...
Thomas has a track record...he co-authored Photoshop, he was the founding engineer on ACR and worked closely with Mark Hamburg in developing Lightroom...these guys have a proven track record and in effect, created this whole friggin' industry...you gotta have some stones to want to go up against the likes of those guys. So far, I don't think you match up. I'll back Thomas over you.
BTW, as to your OP, the results should have been self-evident...of course a capture under tungsten with LB filters would produce a better result than trying to WB a tungsten shot. DOH...so, yes, you original question has been proven. All the rest has been mental masturbation...something you are good at.