If we leave out the DIRs and DIARs, which I would speculate could pooch polarity, there’s two things that appear to hold:
- Unique spectral shape “input” would resist generating “more neurophysiological energy” if the underlying system is engineered toward an appearance of a given “without colour” centroid. Conjecture #1: If the photosensitive granules spectral sensitivities are “balanced” to achromatic, then it follows that any dye replacement coupling, of any spectral characterization, if also balanced to achromatic, will hold the chrominance-luminance stasis. Basically, any system where we have “oriented” our differentials to achromatic should hold? From a few napkin Colab tests, this seems to be invariant in a spectral energy model as well?
- Per layer / channel picture formation mechanics. For a given engineered, via varying ground up photosensitive material as a monotonic densitometric H&D curve, the achromatic A=B=C case will always be “up” relative to an imbalanced version at equivalent neurophysiological energy. Conjecture #2: If the resultant output, regardless of channel swizzling “down”, doesn’t push either luminance plus chrominance “above” the total combined threshold, the polarity is maintained.
I don’t think so? A 3x3 gains the basis vectors arbitrarily. I have always viewed this, rightly or wrongly, as a two dimensional transform applied to a three dimensional Cartesian model. Perhaps a 4x4 is required to maintain polarity? No clue.
The notion of an “whiteness decrement HKE” remains here, however. It seems at least viable that there’s a peculiar “intercept” threshold along the whiteness dimensions downward. EG: If we look off into the distance and see depth cueing in successive “layers” of mountains, a sudden and abrupt differential threshold toward a “deep dark blue” would pop out as forcefully as the standard HKE polarity dimension does in the increment direction.
Something something something cognitive decomposition here?