Color swatches way off in 2.3.1.9.0.12

It's a feature. It's supposed to represent what the light looks like in front of a S4 in "real life." I do not like it one bit.

I agree. It really makes no sense. I think somebody told the programmers about color temperature, and they thought that making the colors match the actual output in terms of the spectrum was a good idea. It doesn't take into account, however, the fact that to a camera and to the eye, 3200K, if that is your main source of lighting, appears white. Any gel added to those lights will appear as a deviation from white. Yes, I realize that in terms of spectrum, it may not be "white," but I'm not looking at a set with a color temperature meter, I'm using my eyes.
Also, in the case of adding gels to a light, the magic sheet makes a light with no gel appear white, as I would expect it to. Now, if I add Half Blue, that same light appears Orange. So the "tungsten factor" is not consistent within the program itself. I have a set with mostly conventional fixtures. I would like to be able to add gels to some of the lights on my magic sheet so I know visually which ones have blue or green on them. All my lights with no gel appear white, while any light with a gel appears a completely indistinguishable shade of orange.
Looking quickly for a gel in the swatches is equally frustrating because nothing is what it would look like to my eye if I were looking through the swatch book.

Please, fix this soon. It's a horrible feature.

If Eos were a WYSIWYG display system, ETC might plausibly argue that the colors should be the most accurate representation.  However, it is a system for lighting designers, so the objective of the swatches ought to be giving those designers the best representation for use in design.  The 2.3.1 version is so bad I went back to 2.2.1.  

Kodak (and other camera manufacturers) learned decades ago that a photograph that exactly replicates the image the camera sees is NOT a pleasing photo.  That's why they had different films for daylight, tungsten, or fluorescent.  The human visual system uses "Chromatic Adaptation" to correct for these lighting conditions automatically.  ETC's argument that they give the true color is equivalent to Kodak telling their customers, "Suck it up!  The photo looks orange because the room it was taken in looks orange."  They would not have sold many cameras.  Ed Giorgianni's book Digital Color Management has an excellent discussion of these issues.

If Eos were a WYSIWYG display system, ETC might plausibly argue that the colors should be the most accurate representation.  However, it is a system for lighting designers, so the objective of the swatches ought to be giving those designers the best representation for use in design.  The 2.3.1 version is so bad I went back to 2.2.1.  

Kodak (and other camera manufacturers) learned decades ago that a photograph that exactly replicates the image the camera sees is NOT a pleasing photo.  That's why they had different films for daylight, tungsten, or fluorescent.  The human visual system uses "Chromatic Adaptation" to correct for these lighting conditions automatically.  ETC's argument that they give the true color is equivalent to Kodak telling their customers, "Suck it up!  The photo looks orange because the room it was taken in looks orange."  They would not have sold many cameras.  Ed Giorgianni's book Digital Color Management has an excellent discussion of these issues.