Coincidentally, I just spent several hours this weekend deep diving into recent research papers and standards evolution of HDR, wide color gamut and color space standards in video. The problem isn't the math, which is pretty well-defined in the various standards, it's that we have too many partially overlapping standards being proposed and supported by various standards groups, industry associations, manufacturers, studios, publishers and content distributors each of which are continuing to evolve in new versions with many offering optional enhancement levels. It's a mess because for any of these to work as intended they need to be correctly supported by each step in the signal chain yet different components have wildly varying degrees of support for various versions, baselines, levels and layers (with some being proprietary and patent encumbered).

For example, Dolby Vision, HDR10, HDR10+, HLG and HDR Vivid. They are all focused on doing essentially the same thing yet trying to answer seemingly simple questions like "which one is better?" is basically impossible because it depends greatly on the how the specific piece of content was encoded as well as the implementation completeness and correctness of every element from the file, server, playback app, streaming device, AVR and television or projector (and, of course, the cables between each device).

Color models always involve engineering tradeoffs because human color perception can involve:

1. The human perception of particular colors involves negative response in the cones. You can simulate this mathematically, but you can't reproduce it in a gamut.

2. Some humans have tetra-chromatic visual experience to the point of awareness. A larger group have tetra-chromatic visual experience that is measurable based on their response to testing.

3. Scientifically there is nothing different about the "visible spectrum" beyond anthropocentric interests and our experience of it is based on adaptation to particular survival events, not on theory or mathematics.