Quite some time ago I wrote these remarks: Color Fidelity is Bullshit. It turns out there's another wrinkle. See this rather lame but nonetheless interesting piece. Or google up tetrachromacy and google around a bit.
A substantial percentage of women are not trichromats at all, but tetrachromats. We can also glean from this article that mutations that cause color perceptions to vary pretty widely are pretty common.
Ask a color management expert this question:
Suppose I have an apple. If I really work at it, and use the best gear and procedures to make a color accurate print of that apple, what percentage of the population will agree that the apple in the print is the same color as the actual apple?
Since this is precisely the biggest problem that color management is supposed to solve, you'd think they'd have some sort of answer. Andrew Rodney, one of the recognized experts, does not. Instead he has evasions, bullshit, and snark. Interesting, huh? If you do happen to get a straight answer to this question from someone, please report back here.
I know there is population variation, and I know there is precision in color management. I do not know how they relate to one another, and I would like to. How many decimal places of precision is it actually useful to squeeze out of your color managed workflow, given that there's variation in the population? 1? 2? 50? None?
The problem is that the answer to the question about the apple is, I assume, "well, not very many, and god help you if you change the illumination, it's not even going to be close, and as for those tetrachromats, well, ugh."
That answer, unfortunately, sells very few high gamut displays, colorimetry systems, books on color management, and so on.