The images of the Models,with the UHD levels and florescent Hair color, set in a black background are at best optimized to show the centralized content. That seems to be a governing theme in most of your representative shots. Yet upon closer examination, such as looking at the top left image down to the bottom left images, all of whom were taken in the dark, all clearly show the crushing of lighter colors.
While the amount of Metallic Content does allow the brighter Colors to achieve a more rich, deeper appearance, the skin tones are very drab. So the combination isn't showing to be all that more effective than anything else, if as much. The intensity and saturation of any projected color determines the amount of energy inherent in the light that strikes a screen. Flesh tones are less intense than a bright Red or Purple. That is why the most carefully done comparisons show broad areas of skin tone so that a comparison between A & B areas can be easily and clearly seen. Flesh tones and lighter colors, and less deep blacks also lose more dynamics quicker under ambient light than more intense or deeper hued shades, so any comparisons that include those (lighter) things can more effectively show what has been retained...or lost....as the case might be.
The Top image, looking at the Model's left cheek, shows a clear, healthy skin tone in the white sample area, and a almost Grey, "walking dead" tone elsewhere....in comparison*
Of course the Model herself is almost pasty white, so some consideration is made for that. White goes to Grey more quickly than does Red or Yellow.
I qualify that remark by adding that only in such a comparison is the extreme difference noticeable. Still, many have noted such "White" loss exists on their screens.)
The middle shot on the left shows even more of the same....even with the Model's skin being more 'red' in color.
.........and the in the bottom shot, the Model's chin and lower hair take significant hits.
But most curiously, one can see that the top image is a much smaller framed shot, set within the dark screen, and the white sample in the middle shot clearly shows the perimeter of that "framing" as well as how much attenuation is actually happening within the image area. Yes, the Black areas look blacker, but that is only because the incoming light is being swallowed up, and that is counterproductive to showing fine grey scaled detail and more subtle shadows.
None of which are in those shots anyway, and their omission doesn't allow for any really valid determinations to be made....let alone any calls about "Blasphemy" being unwarranted.
The final blow coming from the observed difference seen in the high ambient light shots. Everything is still being crushed, so the comparison with the White example at the bottom is really a moot point. In such a case, it's all about what is happening within the content.
No....it will take a more diverse sampling of content.....non-static, film / video content that has not had it's color spectrum artificially enhanced by the Photographer, before any real ascertain can be made.
All that said, and as I have said before, Ftoast's effort bears a close consideration for anyone with adequate Lumen Horsepower (...claims to the contrary do not help the case...) just as all darker Grey screens also qualify to somewhat lessor extent. The Metallic content employed in the examples above is a definite advantage, and under the right circumstances and set-up, will produce a superior image than any basic, unadulterated Neutral Gray of any comparable shade. What is seen above is obvious testimony to that...because if those examples where of the same shade of a plain 'ol Neutral Grey, being hit by the PJ in use (?) they would be far more than worse...they would be pug-ugly lookin'. The examples above are certainly not.