I was reading about the classification of of colour schemes as complementary, triadic, tetradic etc., when I suddenly realized that the language only makes sense if there is one true colour circle! I already knew that there were colour circles where the colours appear at different angles, stretching some parts of the circle and compressing others, and I was okay with that. But now it seems to me that it can't be okay to have different wheels, if the aesthetics of "primary", complementary, and tertiary colours, and so on, are to be laid down so strongly.
As we screen-readers know, computers typically use a red-green-blue triad as the basis of their colour circle, and printers use the equivalent yellow-cyan-magenta complements. But colour designers, as in this article by Maureen Stone, typically use a red-yellow-blue triad, with green-purple-orange complements, to create a red-orange-yellow-green-blue-purple circle. There's no way around it. If orange "is" blue's complement, then yellow can't be, and if green "is" red's complement, then it can't be cyan. If a triadic scheme consists of red, yellow and blue, then it isn't possible to argue that red, green and blue are a triadic colour scheme.
So, is there evidence that one particular colour circle is the "true" circle for aesthetic purposes, and if so, why? I notice that the red-yellow-blue system beloved of painters and other arty folk doesn't match the Natural Color System (NCS), which is supposed to be based on physiology, and has a colour circle based on a tetrad of red-yellow-green-blue.