(..)so in these designs you can get away without the balancing resistors because you have supply chain control. and any resistor saved means more profit for them.(..)
Hi. Here is how I see that problem from control theory perspective:
The terminal temperatures variation of these LEDs cannot be controlled with the use of tighter/more stringent tolerances. It is because of an internal property of the differential equation that describes the process. No matter how hard you try, the resolution of (linear) approximation of those (nonlinear in general) equations has an unstable element (with positive exponent).
A basic conceptThat is - the tolerances control how much positive the exponent is but can never make exponent negative (and thus stable) so that the terminal temperatures are more and more even with time. Same applies to BJT transistors connected in parallel - if you do not provide some governor then eventually they die one by one.
Of course it is not that without some explicit control the difference of temperatures rises infinitely because some other phenomena also take part in that equation (like thermal coupling, limited temperature rise of the LED itself, copper tracks that have some resistance etc).
The fact is that the more variation in between LEDs terminal temperatures, the less efficient/competitive the design really is. Resistors are one of the most popular solutions because the attractive tradeoff in between losses and temperatures. Alternative designs could connect LEDs in series or drive two strings with 50% PWM etc but the resistors are typically "be$t".
I suppose that one of the reasons for the poor temperature/current stabilization could be that the EU directive about energy efficiency requires that it is 18W/1700lm light source only for 10 minutes of testing and not during the marketed life of 30000h.