The vocabulary is a problem.
"Ideal" is in the eye of the beholder. I'll still think "nominal" is the most accurate description.
"Expected" is what you expect to get using the available capacitor ratios. Note that the attenuation on the high frequency side is not quite down to the "nominal" level. "PSoC actual" is a better choice, as long as the user accepts that there may be some small variation from the curve. I'll change it in the next release.
"ideal" is a direct result of defining transfer function, its pole/zero locations, etc.. When one
speaks of Butterworth, Cheby, Elliptiec there is generally speaking a universal understanding
of what will result, response curves, impulse response, phase, etc.. of the ideal components.
So I think the "eye of the beholder" analogy should not apply to a textbook response
of ideal components, which pretty much is all the available software filter design tools
basis. Spice excepted of course, where one can model the non ideal behaviour of
components, escpecially caps.