What is the age of this print? How was it stored? What kind of stock was it printed on? Who scanned it, when was it scanned, and what did they use to scan it? They fact that they can't even get the 4K panel correct looking is also concerning as that is a digital source.
There's a reason they go back to the original camera negative (OCN), for major films anyway, when restoring a film and don't scan a 35mm release print if they don't have to (it would be the last film anyone would use when restoring a film. The internegative would be better as that is what all the 35mm prints would copy, but more than likely the interpositive would be available if the OCN isn't. These would all still theoretically be of lesser quality than the OCN. Although the protection interpostive may ultimately be a better source as it's seen less action than the negative and is a finished version of the film, and it's just safer to use). The 35mm prints are made to be projected on a screen. Film isn't just scanned by a machine and it comes out looking perfect. It requires work. And obviously the OCN itself requires a ton of work, too. This is what leads to "poor" remasters. They could be using and referencing film from any step in the process. Ideally you have notes on the color timing process. But those notes aren't always easy to translate from an analog to digital process. Not to mention you can be way more specific in the digital realm than you can when chemically color timing film. When we speak of an artist's original intent, they may simply have not been able to replicate what they imagined because the tools or process were not available. And it's why you often hear the creatives say the latest transfer looks better than the film ever looked. They could tweak it like never before and they are working from either original material or closer to original material. A 35mm release print is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.