Alexey, concerning the use of monochromator to make the best matrix profile I think you're in overkill space.
The thing is that to make a good matrix fit the matching task must not be too difficult. With modern cameras the CC24 is matched pretty good with a matrix, but that's because there are no extreme saturation colors. It can be seen that this good matching of the CC24 is made at cost of extreme colors.
If you instead try to make a matrix that will match also extremely saturated colors, with the help of a glossy target or indeed SSF and spectral data, you will get a much poorer match so the CC24-range of colors will suffer. You can try this with DCamProf now using the provided SSF example. Pure matrix profiles are best when optimized only for normal range colors, and for normal range colors a standard test target procedure will do just as good as SSF, possibly even better as I think it's harder to make an exact monochromator measurement.
I also know that SSF is not really something *all* manufacturers are using, some design the profiles the traditional way using targets and subjective tunings, so one cannot really say that SSF will make better profiles. It's probably easier to make dual-illuminant DCPs with better color temp predictions though as you can use the exact standardized illuminants though. Adobe is probably using SSFs.
That said I very much myself like to be able to measure SSF since once you have them you can make lot of interesting experiments, but I'm not really sure I would use an SSF-based profile for "production", haven't decided on that. It is possible to merge both SSF and traditional measurement into one .ti3 and make a profile from that too, but it's probably difficult as light sources need to match exactly.
But if I would only want a matrix profile, I would do it based on a test target.
