Actually, I didn't. In fact, quite the opposite: I went out of my way to repeatedly clarify that it is not remixing (especially not what you're proposing with the centre channel content being spread to all three front speakers).

With PLII, there is no centre channel unless one is extracted by the processing. Since the extraction is already ocurring, it makes sense to have some user control over the extraction level.

This is very different from the remixing you're talking about, where no additional channels are created but the contents of the front three channels are literally redistributed. You can "consider" it anything you want. That will allow you to claim that the 990 has a feature (which it really doesn't) and then complain when that feature is not present for other modes.

If you actually admit what PLII is doing, then your complaint falls apart because you realize that there isn't any remixing going on to begin with. Again, you can "consider" it anything you want, but they are in fact different processes. Extracting a centre channel where there was none is different from redistributing discrete centre content to other channel and mixing it into the content that already exists in those channels. No, it's not "simply a case of software refactoring." Matrix extraction is different from downmixing. The above describes standard downmixing of three channels to two. But this is different from what you've been proposing, where you start off with three channels and end up with three channels, except with the contents redistributed. I don't understand what you mean by the above. Are you saying that imaging is shot when using a centre speaker for a listener in the sweet spot? And how does anchoring the dialogue to the centre channel end up collapsing the front soundstage?