I have noted the stabilisation is not used during active probe measuring. Another thing I have noted is that it may happen to have put a pattern before the measure. Worthess to add that precision in such a measurements is quite important as it reflects on probe correction on measures, profiles and caracterisation. I am also sensitive beacues I calibrate mainly OLED's
In order have some assessment of that I have preparared a patch file, with 3 Black, 3 R, 3 G, 3 B, 3 W, 3W (for test), 3 R, 3 G, 3 B, 3 W repeated another time, but introducing before each reading the reading of a Black pattern. The Black pattern emulates a stabilisation for a time equal to the integration time.
I have done all that on my E8 and my I1 display pro. Integration time is set to .75 sec.
Here what I have measured for at around 100 and 200 Nits.
What it can be seen (red marking) is that white insertion introduce less variation on XYZ if stabilisation is applied. So somehow the results are less dipending on the display history.
On the right part of the picture I have assessed for the two patterns (No white insertion, white insertion) the differences between the cases without and with stabilitation. Also there stabilisation introduce some benefits.
Interesting/good that the standard deviation stays alsways white low
PS: it is not difficult, starting fom XLM format of LS profiles, use Excel to elaborate them. Basically you might take my CSV file, run it, and, with my excel file, have the outcomes by a simple import. Also based on file the generation of a bpd is quite easy. This may be of interes if for same reason you want averaging on a value greater than 3.
If somebody is interested, ask for it, and I will post a link to my files with a little of explanation.