That is what I suspected. Should be receiving it today, will test both and report back.
The problem is defining "accurate."
I have 3 I1 spectros. An old M0 one, as somewhat newer M2 (uV cut) one, and an I1-2 Pro.
Each has a different White point that varies by .0020 to .0060 on the xy chromaticity from each other and the CG318's colorimeter. So how do you determine which "blue" is "correct?"
And here's another confounding factor:
I have a CG301 (CFL backlight) as well. It's now mounted vertically alongside the CG318. When calibrated with the same spectro (I1-2 Pro), to the same specs, the white's on the two monitors are significantly different with the CG301 having a slight green/magenta tint in comparison to the CG318. After some investigation I determined the difference was due to very different responses between the 10 degree CIE and 2 degree CIE. Calibration is done to 2 degree specs but the whites of the monitors are better described by the 10 degree CIE specs. Investigating the reasons for the discrepancy, it turns out the 301's "blue" spectral peak is at 440nm while the 318 (LED backlight) is at 450nm. The 2 degree curve has a much heavier weight at 440nm than the 10 degree curves. I wound up adjusting the xy WP chromaticity on the 301 so that it would yield the same values on the 10 degree curve on both the CG318 and CG301 and now the "whites" match. The CG318 has a much closer match between the 2 degree curve and 10 degree curve and it also provides a somewhat more pleasing white.
Apart from the variability in the spectro's, there is the issue of individual variability in color response. People categorized as having normal color vision still vary a fair amount in how they see emissive colors from combining primaries. With differences of over 10 dE. So some individuals may see whites from the CG301 matching with the CG318 while others see significant differences.
Issues of color matching are not as straightforward as the CIE 1931 equations seem to suggest.