Yes, And additivity (putting adaption aside for the moment) failure is going to be most apparent with narrower spectra R, G, and B spectra. Also, additivity failure should be less for smaller gamut (RGB spectra are generally broader) monitors than for the mono freq., experimental wide gamut displays or even just wider gamut monitors. Is the effect enough to credibly argue that sRGB monitors are better suited for color matching (proofing) prints than wider gamut monitors? This could certainly be the case if the printed colors are within sRGB but how far outside that would it have to be for wider gamut monitors to provide a better visual match?
I'm mostly concerned about getting decent proof matches before I commit to print. It might be interesting to view side by side patches proofing on a monitor and a matching Solux illuminated print. Is it possible a sRGB'ish monitor with broader spectral greens could produce better monitor proofs than a wide gamut monitor due to a smaller additive failure?
As an aside, I'm pretty happy with the process I use to set the white point and luminance match (xy tweaked slightly from D50 cords). But, of course, it's based on my sense of color and we do vary.
The softproofed images match good enough so the people usually don't complain. The problem is monitor's white, where the difference is obvious, and where you can see the difference between displays of different backlight spectra calibrated to the same wtpt x,y coordinates. From my personal experience it's not about observer variability - I calibrated monitors with dozens of clients and they saw same issues like me, we usually agreed when it was satisfactorily neutral in most cases, we agreed it was too greenish or pinkish.
Maybe it becomes an issue in case of superwide gamut laser displays, but IMO it also sounds like it might be the problem with adaptation.
From Oicherman: "The existence of adaptation differences between broadband and narrowband stimuli
leading to additivity failures is also long acknowledged (Trezona 1953; Trezona 1954; Stiles
1963; Crawford 1965; Lozano and Palmer 1967; Zaidi 1986). In this study we have established
a relationship between the two, and have shown evidence indicating that both effects are caused
by the same mechanism of postreceptoral adaptation. To our knowledge, this report is the first
to show the consequences of additivity failure in conditions relevant to practical colorimetry.
Since the establishment of colorimetry, the additivity laws were somewhat of a sacred issue.
The general understanding seemed to be that failure of additivity essentially leads to breakdown
of CIE colorimetry and need of redesigning it. Our main conclusion concerning the failure of
additivity is that this is not so: the additivity failure can be predicted, modelled and compensated
for."
"The present research has begun as the research in basic colorimetry. We saw our target in the
development of the new standard deviate observer. The way to approach the goal seemed to be
in collection of large as possible amount of colour matching data. By the end of the first
experiment we knew that we do not need any more data: the set from S&B (Stiles and Burch
1959) study from 50 years ago provides all the information we need. The second experiment
taught us that the new SDO in not needed altogether – at least for the cross-media colour
matching: the observer metamerism does not contribute much to variations in colour matches of
spatially separated stimuli. Moreover: in these conditions, the colour matching itself does not
seem to operate according to classical cone-quantum metamerism model, as the observer’s
adaptation state changes instantaneously when the gaze is moved from one media to another. As
the result, we had to resort to advanced colour difference formulae and chromatic adaptation
transform."