James Thurley

For the parameters I basically tried to make the DNG as "raw" as possible, so that only the demosaicing would be done by X-Transformer and Lightroom would still handle everything else. If you look at this post I wrote I go into more detail on each setting and why I chose it and have screenshots of my X-Transformer configuration. I went to quite a lot of effort to make sure I understood each setting, so I'm fairly confident in the result.
The built in lens corrections are passed through in the DNG for Lightroom to apply. Unexpectedly though the lens corrections come out slightly differently after going through X-Transformer: Even with "Include as DNG Metadata" set as the lens correction option, when Lightroom applies the corrections from the DNG the result matches what you would get if you got X-Transformer to apply the corrections itself, and doesn't match what you get applying the lens corrections directly from the RAF file. My guess is that when X-Transformer maps the lens corrections from RAF format to DNG format it goes via their algorithm in some way. Although this sounds concerning, in my brief test (again, see the post I linked to above for more detail) the lens corrections applied from the DNG were actually slightly better than when they were applied directly from the RAF.
I'm not overly concerned about deleting the RAF files, as DNG is a more standard format anyway. It's just a shame the DNGs are about 3x the size, but that is unavoidable as they now contain RGB values per pixel rather than the single color value from the X-Trans filter that the RAF stored. Keeping the RAF files is only about 33% more space though, so keeping them isn't a bad option if you have the space.

I own the XT-2 & 3 and have also tested with my own files.  I took 3 RAW images and converted them with IRXT, Enhanced DNG, CR DNG, and Tiff using CR.  Then compared all the files in Lightroom.  At normal viewing and even at 100% you will not see much difference.  Most people had to zoom to 300 & 400% to see the difference.  However I have been using Fuji and LR for a long time, the issue asserts itself with Clarity and sharpening. 
So to view the issues at their worst I increased Clarity, Luminance, and Detail to 100%.  The RAW and CR DNG files looked like a horror movie with alien worms about to jump out (at normal viewing on a small monitor.  The IRXT & Enhanced DNG were very close to equal, with maybe an EXTREMELY small benefit  going to the Enhanced.  The CR Tiff showed the best appearance.  These results were at all zoom levels - the worms were just not there on any of the three.
I started to export to Tiff just recently as I was experimenting with alternative software and not all are compatible with XT-3 files or even DNG.  I found exporting to Tiff gave me the freedom to use any software I wish and the worm effect no longer occurred.  The disadvantage is the larger file size of course.  My new workflow is:
Use Bridge "Review Mode" to sort out which images I want to process Open them in Camera Raw and Export to new location as Tiff (Full size, 16bit, Profoto RGB) Process "Global" adjustments using Luminar 3 (My preferred processing software) After global adjustments - export as Tiff to my "Gallery" folder Import the "Gallery" into Lightroom for the excellent DAM provided and round trip to Photoshop if any local adjustments may be needed. Export from Lightroom for final destination in format as required (Internet, Printing, Web, etc.)