Case in point, if CRI meant anything, then incandescent bulbs are the best for growing.
Well that point would be true if CRI meant everything, or something so significant the rest becomes irrelevant, not just anything.
I don't understand the point of CRI WRT horticulture, unless one is worried about display of flowers or photography..
And even then CRI alone means very little without spectral distribution and ctt. CRI 98 still isn't going to produce great light and realistic colors for photography if the temp is too low for example.
It doesn't relate directly to photosynthesis efficiency but given the right light photomorphogenesis is affected and lights like the LEP as well as greenhouses turning off light (to soak up day light only for a short time) show interesting benefits. Involves plant shape, root growth, chloroplast transport, leaf arrangement, stomata openings, and many other factors that indirectly do contribute to efficiency. It's an accepted fact amongst experts that using a tuned spectrum can lead to much better plants and more product than daylight, but at the same time plants evolved under sun light and don't utilize all of their genetic potential - of which some can lead to a net higher production and/or quality - under anything else.
Not CRI specifically, old and probably posted before:
"
Results from this study show that light quality and quantity affect cannabinoid synthesis in the growing plant. The effects were evident on the concentration of the principal cannabinoid component (A9-THC) of this strain..."
http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/crl/Cannabis_the_plant/Mahlberg_1983.pdf (remove file name to browse more docs...)