We're in the weeds and I've lost you. You said "The CIE 1931 curve showing a bump in red inside the blue is misleading I think. It does not represent how the cones react"
Which I took to be a complaint that XYZ doesn't represent cone response well.
And I responded that that's silly, because (1) XYZ wasn't designed to represent cone responses and (2) the bump is there deliberately to produce a more mathemetically orthogonal basis.
If you go back to all those books you've read over that decade you spent building your expertise, I'm sure you'll find the same info.
OK, makes sense. You're still being sorta oddly pedantic about this. sRGB was for sure designed to reflect a phosphor set based on red, green, and blue primaries that absolutely were chosen for their correspondence to what most people reason about as primary colors, and the reason for that is that we have three cone pigments in our retina and those three tickle them more or less orthogonally.
So I don't get your criticism. Poster above wanted a set of primaries that corresponds to how the cones react. The closest you can get to that is an RGB space like... sRGB.
Arguing about which design point (phosphor correspondence or cone correspondence) is "real" or "derived" is IMHO meaningless pedantry at this level.
Which I took to be a complaint that XYZ doesn't represent cone response well.
And I responded that that's silly, because (1) XYZ wasn't designed to represent cone responses and (2) the bump is there deliberately to produce a more mathemetically orthogonal basis.
If you go back to all those books you've read over that decade you spent building your expertise, I'm sure you'll find the same info.