Gradybeachum

Well, then. Let's try to minimize confusion, as you are mixing a few things together that aren't really interrelated or relevant to the topic.
 
First of all, exposure metering is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is your exposure. Exposing right is the job of the photographer. It's not the camera's job at all. Metering may be the camera's job, if you decide not to use an external meter. However, exposure metering isn't responsible for your exposure, just like the speedometer in your car isn't responsible for you driving too slow or too fast. If things go wrong, you get the ticket, not the car.
 
Of course, there are two different exposures at work: (1) exposing the sensor (and hence the RAW file) with photons in a way that optimizes dynamic range (for the intended purposes) and shot noise, and (2) exposing an end result (JPEG, TIFF) in a RAW converter from the RAW file.
 
This example is perfectly exposed for the sensor. The only thing I would have made different is using a smaller aperture in order to increase DOF. However, the relevant parts are in focus, so this file is perfectly usable, and it's also nicely exposed to the relevant highlights (aka the cap on the head).
 
Of course, adaptive exposure during RAW conversion is a different story, especially when we enjoy the freedom of an ISOless sensor. Thanks to advanced sensor technology, we can become little Ansel Adams clones in our digital lightroom (hence the beautly of the name Adobe Lightroom) and assign different zones to different parts of the image, either selectively or globally. What we do in the digital lightroom (aka the RAW converter) is often the more important part of exposing an image, especially in an ISOless world, where adaptive digital gain is replacing old-fashioned (think Canon) analog signal amplification.
 
We call this process tone-mapping, and we do it ourselves, we do not press "Auto" buttons, just like we don't shoot JPEG-only in SR+ mode. We just don't, because we want to take control over the process.
 
This example requires a slight overall contrast and exposure push, and possibly a slight reduction of whites and highlights to compensate for this. After all, it's the dark face we are after, not the bright cap. You can also use tone-curves along with Lightroom's adaptive exposure controls.
 
That said, none of this has any relation to the original topic at hand, which was false colors. In Lightroom, it's quickly handled with color NR settings. An aggressive 100/0/100 setting does the job, w/o the dire consequences some might fear. X-Trans is a different beast and less prone to color noise than Bayer cameras, so using these sliders in an aggressive way to fight false colors is often not a problem. Brian used to recommend aggressive slider action in earlier versions of Iridient, as well.
 
Of course you can use C1, Iridient, Lightroom, AccuRAW, Aperture, Photo Ninja, Silkypix/RFC or one of the open source converters. Just remember that none of them is perfect, and each will have different issues with different images. I own and use all of the mentioned converters, so I couldn't care less what other people use (fanboyism is a terrible disease). However, it's important to base your buying decision on knowledge and experience with the available options, because things are not always what they seem. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true, not even when it's shared a million times.