Chris - Kodak and Fuji engineers have no doubt done that kind of sensitometric thing many times over for their own sake. Whether or not any of it has been published or is somehow available to the general public is hard to say. But if one is comfortable reading the readily available dyes curves in the standard respective Tech Sheets, you've already got what you want. In terms of even more critical evaluation, actual eye inspection is always necessary; and that is how in fact they monitor the consistency of color quality control in the factory.
But that itself has lots of variables, including the accuracy of the lighting and how tightly the representative chrome has been exposed to spec (the target Kelvin temp even seems to differ, with Kodak's standard daylight officially being 5500K, but Fuji's somewhat different and warmer, namely somewhere around 5200K instead - that explains certain things). You could try asking Kodak directly.
Then you need an ideal professional viewing source, plus a fresh set of eyes not fatigued by staring at computer screen like I am now doing right now. And there is simply no substitute for a lot of experience doing this kind of thing. We get better at it over time, at least until eyesight itself begins to fail, or if there is some kind of abnormal color perception issue.
The kind of spectrophotometers I used were full spectrum, capable of producing actual nm graphs all the way from a step into ultraviolet,
clear through the visible spectrum, and a step the other direction, clear into IR. Ordinary film densitometers can't do that, but only measure RGB density points. In terms of specifics, everything keeps changing anyway. Provia I, II, and III were all a little different, as were the slightly different flavors of Vevia. Then there was Astia, the most evenly balanced chrome film line ever, along with its tungsten-balanced sister, CDU duplicating films; but there were even multiple generational tweaks of those. And as for Ektachrome, it has had its own evolution with a lot of variety and different hue biases, although the former end of the line product, E100G, seemed quite similar to current E100.
Then things start getting even more complicated when you try to figure out how these films themselves each "see" or not a specific type of color. For example, to the human eye, there is a lot of brilliant orange lichen on bare buckeye tree branches around here every winter; but that's based on fluorescent fungi which no current film fully or accurately responds to. Likewise, there are certain fabric dye colors which some films accurately see compared to us, but others don't. But the same kind of saturated hues in nature itself (according to our sight), like in wildflowers, might respond completely differently on some of the same films. Therefore, there is no substitute for a lot of experience with any given color film to understand what it really can or can't do well in our estimate.
I apologize for being slightly long-winded. But the only serious conclusion I can give you is that there is NO fully reliable objective "data" manner of instrumentally monitoring the precision of color. And I was once on a first name basis with the Chairman of the International Color Council, composed of the world's leading authorities, with some of them, including him, having at their disposal many millions or dollars worth of specialized instrumentation, and even more under design. Despite all of that still ongoing worldwide, color evaluation alway has been, and always will be distinctly SUBJECTIVE TOO, because that's how human eyes and brains actually work. All the big bucks color matchers at the manufacturing sources themselves still do it by eye. The fancy instruments mitigate eye fatigue, but are never competent for a hole in one.
Alan - digi cameras and especially digi outputs have hue limitation issues of their own, and also vary between one another. No difference in principle, just a different tool kit.
