There are two aspects to monitor profiling, in my view:
1) Internal consistency: is the profile producing values close to
the ones
expected according to the measurement device used to create it?
2) Absolute accuracy: how closely do the colorimetric values
predicted by
the profile match the colorimetric values actually measured by a
*reference-grade* instrument?
Point 1 is within the reach of the "common mortal" type of user.
Point 2 is
for the lucky ones (like Roger) who have access to a $25K+ reference
instrument.
Your list of options is a bit "binary".
The second aspect for most users would be to compare the accuracy of
their monitor to an external reference profile.
"Internal consistency" isn't good enough for hard proofing so why
accept it for soft proofing?
FOGRA for hard proofing, UGRA for soft proofing...
