So you also need a means of calibrating the spectro' against a traceable "standard" and check it at regular intervals. Don't tell me about the principals of calibration, I was a professional at it.
.... needs numbers to say what won't do. Have you ever seen the "Uncertainty" of measurement" values for any monitor calibration device, this is more than just "accuracy".

Well, a lot of colorimeter devices are sold and many pro's and advanced amateur photographers use them.
You can become too fussy on these matters especially as colour is a matter of perception for most photographers and I know, from my supplier who is a graphics industry expert, that devices like the EyeOne 2 display are perfectly adequate for most purposes. This particularly applies with monitors that do not have hardware calibration.

Roma already has the EyeOne 2 Display device and what seems to be a "modest" monitor so let's help him with what he has got!

For the record, about "validation" (not verification)
Validation merely gives the dE2000 errors for the current monitor icc profile using the same device as was used for the calibration. These dE2000 errors, in simple terms,  are a measure of out-of-gamut amount of the monitor in relation to the test colour patches. A value is given for each patch and an average.
It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the measuring device but does give an indication of the monitor gamut in relation to the test patches.

Terry.

Yes, the whole idea of using the device that produced the profile to check the profile is flawed.
However, the proof is in the pudding, I get excellent monitor to print matching which is, in the end, what matters.
When someone invents a printing system with a gamut approaching that of a monitor, then the finer points of calibration may become more relevant, but I don't see that happening just yet.
Terry.