I disagree. A light source can be bright, but have very little in the way of PAR. If 400 lux is equal to 400 par, KatyKat would be frying that candycane to death.
Also, if a coral didn't have enough light, it would inflate more to create more surface area to catch available light, not shrink.
I think you may be disagreeing with symantics. You are absolutely correct in that a light can be bright and have little PAR value. I never said different. As well, the measurement she gave was likely 400 PAR (micromoles per second Sq per meter). this would give a value around 20,000+ lux if my memory serves me correctly. So the 400 lux was probably measured with a PAR meter, which is to say, it is a measurement of the light intensity specifically that in the PAR range of light, or 400-700nm.
Really, there are only 2 likely ways the 400 value was obtained;
1. An aquarium light meter on the sand bed which measured 400PAR, which although in the lower end of moderate lighting may be enough, or
2. A value of the light source (some cheaper lights do use that number).
So in each case there would be the following result;
1. 400 PAR at the sand bed is in the range that MAY support the coral, but is definately not enough to "fry that candycane", or
2. a 400 lumen light which is around a 4 watt LED CREE bulb, insufficient for anything (so it is probably not this number).
As for both my trumpet corals, they inflate fully and fluffily (a new word) when the lights are good while feeder tenticles come out or there is less inflation at dawn/dusk lighting or when I am fiddling with the lights.