I will make it easy (and be lazy) and use your own words, of which I fully concur
…
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...61a-review-powered-monitor.28039/post-1389503
Very little of those reasons seem to apply to your situation, yet
you are talking like it is a mandatory minimum requirement for you. Taking them one at a time:
1. To allow for different room reflectance, or size, or speaker placement;
This is more desirable for the manufacturer, so they can sell one speaker to various buyers with various rooms. So why do you "concur" that it is a critical requirement for you?
2. also for using the same speaker for different program material eg 2CH and MCH;
Again, I see no reference anywhere in this thread that such application has anything to do with your decision-making priorities.
3. also to allow for many recording engineers being much more sensitive to reflections/spaciousness than 'ordinary folk' and making mixes too dead.
Although this is 'a reason' for variable directivity, it is a second-rate solution compared to being able to add reverberation to the sound field via a MCH processor. For 2-channel-only playback I can see the potential: but then #2 wouldn't apply, yet you say it does.
I seriously don't think that you had thought through those particular issues, or that they were your particular issues and your reasons for making variable directivity a high priority, before I asked the question. You just thought it would be clever to try and use my own words against me.
Nor have you answered the 'cardioid bass as a priority focus' part of my question.
Reviewing your
Big Reveal post, it seems you are using the three directivity modes as feelgood dial. That's okay, why not. It does take us away from the idea of hearing what the production team made for us with great skill and deliberation, though. I would suggest planning for MCH, plus good upmixing when needed, as a far superior way to achieve this.
cheers