i'm probably not thinking about this right, but that sounds kind of needlessly complex. i mean, it's not just the colors you're anti-correcting in your lights.  it's their luminance, too.  which means you're anti-correcting the light to be darker, then applying anti-correction to the surface input to make it darker, then correcting the surface to make it lighter.  i mean, you could try to do something with then correcting the light's color, but then you're back making the color wrong.  so you'd have to do something wacky with the lights to correct the color but keep the luminance.

it seems more sensible just to keep the lights in correct plain colors/photos.  i mean, an IBL doesn't have any other calculations it's making about it's colors and luminance, right? and the other types of lights are pretty much the same, right?  no transforms within the base?  like, i could see needing to correct the inverse square falloff output, but that's just luminance.

and what you do with the GenIBL might explain the problems i had when using Synthetic's iterative rendering techniques with your GenIBL.  i kept having to tweak the image to make it brighter, and couldn't figure out why i was loosing so much luminance with each iteration.  now i know.

it's much simpler just to keep the hue and saturation shift out of the shader, and use your technique to affect only the luminance.  is there any reason this would be less accurate?  is there a hue and saturation shift i actually want to preserve?