You are really just making way too much out of one light producing more IR than another. If you want to bury yourself in a rabithole without actually explaining anything go for it, but I'm not coming along for the ride.
A lot of it isn't absorbed but reflected, let's copy and paste from a scientific study from some great lab technicians who post on researchgate
With solar energy a single layer of leaves will generally absorb 80% of incoming visible radiation, whilst reflecting 10% and transmitting 10%. With infrared approximately 20% is absorbed with 50% being reflected and 30% transmitted.
I'd would be more impressed or inclined to believe you if you talked in actual factual science not the assumption that it is bad and plants haven't spent a few earth cycles learning to deal with it.
Since LEDs seem to miss a lot of things out evidence points to HP's emitting the most photons, since they still seem to match LEDs with most growers and initial claims of 50% more have really died. This now suggests HP's bears close to the same plant usable light but with a lot of added extras.
I think I see that, HP's grows big plants, LEDs don't seem to have the penetrating wavelengths that HP's has. So why add UV the most damaging and least effective wavelength - probably again some rumour that UV adds 20% extra trichs or thc.
And wasn't it LEDs who fell so far down a rabbit hole were only now starting to see a competing product because it was only recent that certain red issues got sorted and another rabbit hole claim on light fixed.
Not here to argue, I really am struggling with the more heat supplements HP's spectrums in led and only seem to find hobbyists making assumptions to sell led lights.
Maybe a more open civil debate so some minor science can be applied to a lot of reading and guesswork.
