I believe that I do understand everything you posted and have tried my best to correct your misconceptions. But, no matter how hard I try and for whatever reason, I apparently can’t get you to understand and/or acknowledge what I have written and/or the associated substantiating test results. I was hoping the reason was a language barrier resulting from your use of inadequate language translation software (which could also explain your grammar and spelling errors).
I do understand and have explained (several times now) how it works in Cubase 8.5. You have shown (despite your claim to the contrary) that it works differently in Cubase 9. Can you please explain how you think it works in both versions and what its intended purpose is in each?
Please note that my response was intended to show that your statement about plugin delay compensation contradicted what the manual says – sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough!
Maybe so! I think of DAW record latency compensation as the time shifting of newly recorded tracks to align them with previously recorded tracks. To do so accurately, that time shift needs to include the input and output latencies of the audio interface, an accurate plugin delay compensation (PDC) delay value, and an accurate ASIO Guard delay. I.e. the time shift should be equal to the sum of the DAW system’s overall playback and record delays (call it DAW System Round Trip Delay – SRTD?) To my knowledge Cubase can’t measure SRTD so it relies the accurate reporting of the interface latencies, plugin delays, and an accurate application/reporting of PDC as well as ASIO Guard delay. The purpose of PDC is to add appropriate delays to each track to time align them with the track with the largest delay during playback. Is this correct?
It, like the analogous “FX Anticipative Processing” in Reaper adds playback delay that needs to be included for proper record latency compensation (call it SRTD compensation?) as defined above.
Sorry! Since my
was apparently inadequate, I’ll elaborate. Cubase 8.5 always adds latency to VSTi that may not always be appropriate, necessary, and/or desirable. The magnitude of this delay is determined by the reported input latency of the audio interface, which can be rather significant.
I really hope that the Steinberg folks don’t share your point of view. I spent a lot of time trying to inform them of deficiencies that would be in everyone’s best interest to correct. Hopefully it wasn’t a total waste 
I freely admit that I’m not an expert on this stuff and am still struggling to fully understand it. Since the published and/or posted information on this matter is quite limited and often misleading and/or incorrect, I’ve been doing my own testing to fill in some of the blanks. Surely someone out there really understands these subjects (or at least has a better understanding than me). Please help me and others do so too! If you think that my reasoning/conclusions are flawed, please post accordingly (and provide a meaningful/detailed explanation) - I’m not sensitive! It you agree with me, please post accordingly too – hopefully that would help incentivize Steinberg to fix things! If you have questions about what I’ve posted, please ask!
Thanks 