Hi,
Doug's posting is not a scientific article but it does contain some alternate facts.
Doug shows a spectral plot of traditional CFA filters:
But, traditional filters look like this:
Or this:
Or this:
So Doug illustrates traditional CFA designs with fake info. There is a sensor that has some characteristics similar to the traditional CFA illustration in Doug's presentation and that is the human vision, corresponding to curve A, below:
The reason such curves are not used in digital cameras is that it would cause excessive levels of noise.
Regarding UV-filtering and IR filtering, that is really a job for the cover glass, that has an IR-filter. Optical glass doesn't transmit much in UV anyway. If UV/IR is an issue, it is not about a new design, it is about Phase One designing an underperforming cover glass on the older models.
The colour differences Doug demonstrate are well within the capabilities of properly designed camera profiles. The effects shown can possibly achieved just buying a proper test target and use Lumariver's Profile Designer.
So, my impression is that it is a marketing hyperbole. The curves that Doug shows are patently fake. If the article starts with fake facts, why would be believe the rest?
To Dougs's defense, I would assume that he just uses info he got from Phase One, but I don't think he should have use it as to much of the info is fake and it should be obvious to anyone doing colour stuff.
Best regards
Erik