CRI seems to me a blunt and rather useless measure of how the individual’s eyes see things.
LEDs are a big compromise, they use a mix of phosphors to try to replicate a continuous spectrum, hopefully to match with human eye’s rod and cone response, which varies.
And leave big gaps between them, hoping they will not be noticed.
Likewise digital camera sensors use colour filter arrays over a wide-spectrum sensor, to try to get “nice” colours. Then we struggle to reproduce them on un-calibrated monitors with different colour filter arrays, but somehow it mostly works, the human eye and brain is very forgiving.
Try lighting a scene with LEDs and shooting it with a digital camera, critically, and you might realise why flashes, or halogens, (or even daylight), with continuous spectrum, still rule.
Bottom line: trust your eyes (even my left one is different from the right), and choose what suits you, not because of some simplistic CRI number, or popular LED brand name.
Don’t misunderstand, I am as fascinated with tints etc. as most, and have strong opinions, but CRI doesn’t seem very relevant to me, other things dominate in practice, particularly at low light levels, when everything changes, to the human eye, rather than to a measuring instrument.