The intent of the Leica M/SL/CL/T lens profiles isn't to create "perfect" adjustments for lens aberrations; it's to help ensure that lenses used on their various different sensors all render to about the same output. If you take a small handful of M or R lenses and use the adapters to fit them onto different M, SL, T, and CL bodies with the lens profiles turned off, you'll detect many subtle differences between the captures. If you do the same test with lens profiles turned on, what comes out of the cameras will look much more homogeneous with respect to the lens qualities.
I've done this kind of comparison testing variously with M9, SL, M-D 262, M-P 240, CL, M10-M, and M10-R bodies over the past 12 years. The differences are there and visible between uncoded and coded ... But are they big? Not really, they're mostly subtleties. But Leica is all about subtleties...
Aperture reportage in EXIF with M lenses is difficult to get accurate because the lens profiles only know the lens typ and its theoretical maximum aperture. There's evidently no entry in the map that covers lenses' T-values, and with no mechanical connection to tell the cameras what aperture is actually set, the camera has to deduce the set lens opening based on knowing the maximum F/stop, ambient lighting, etc, as a dynamic value. It's often well off the mark for the simple reason that it's hard to do without more information. 😉
I usually let the standard setting happen automagically with coded lenses, and with any uncoded lenses let it ride by turning the coding off. Then, to keep my bookkeeping straight in Lightroom, I use EXIFTool to modify the DNG files with proper lens name, max aperture, etc in the embedded EXIF data.
G