What I’m going to suggest is sometimes called "time-intensity trading", as the off-centerline listening locations which have a later arrival from one speaker compensate by having greater intensity (loudness) from that speaker.
Briefly, start with speakers which have a very uniform radiation pattern of perhaps 90 degrees wide (-6 dB at 45 degrees off-axis to either side) over most of the spectrum. Then toe them in severely, such that their axes actually criss-cross in front of the centeral "sweet spot".
For an off-centerline listener, the NEAR speaker naturally "wins" arrival time, BUT because of the aggressive toe-in and relatively narrow radiation pattern width, the FAR speaker "wins" INTENSITY!
JBL aimed similarly with their DD55000 Everest's (DD for "Defined Directivity"):
The design went through a fairly extensive evolution before arriving at the final configuration. Originally, the concept was to develop a "super L300" with a similar sonic character. It was given the working designation of the L400. However, that designation had a notorious past and was soon dropped (see sidebar below). The system would be designed around a new acoustic concept referred to as "Defined Directivity" (the DD in DD55000). This concept had been pioneered by Don Keele in the professional 4660 ceiling speaker. That speaker was intended to provide rectangular coverage with constant volume from front to back. Bruce Scrogin realized that mounting this horn sideways in a home system could provide constant horizontal coverage. The asymmetric design would force more sound to the distant axis compared to the near axis so that someone walking a horizontal line between the speakers would be exposed to a constant sound level.
http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/everest.htm
The rationale behind this acoustic concept, to my mind, would seem less realized if it didn't entail an appreciation of a sonic correlation as perceived in the seated sweet spot, apart from offering a wider listening area to move within. Image specificity in the extreme doesn't exist in a live acoustic performance, and yet it's a devoured trait in audiophilia. To me at least the predominant takeaway in the debate about a narrow vs. wider spot is honing in on the "sweet spot" between these two dispersive extremes that most closely emulates the perceived impression of a live acoustic presentation, and this also involves for the listener to be able to move from side to side, as one would at a live performance, without seeing the sonic "image" tilt severely.