The very word restore implies that you are returning something to the film. Digitally recomping things to eliminate visual information and visual characteristics that were there from the beginning is actually the opposite of what "restore" means.

The matte lines, the opacity compromises, the composite wobble, the misprinted colours were there, they are part of how the film existed (and actually when you understand how effects were done back then you realise that the composite was the effect). Taking them away is eliminating visual information from the original release and compromising the integrity of the film's history. And then you are adding a re-composited version of that effect (which looks different--let's not be in denial again here. The fact that it looks different is the whole reason why you are redoing the effects, otherwise there would be no point, you could just leave them).

So yes, you not only are suggesting the original visuals be eliminated, you are suggesting adding visual to the film. Sorry, that's what you are doing. That's why no one who knew anything about restorations would consider this a restoration. The replaced visuals are true to the spirit of the original yes, and use the same elements--but they aren't the original visuals. Especially from a historical standpoint it undermines the authenticity of the film and eliminates the painstakingly hard work that effects artists went to in order to create those visual elements (the composites--the end point to which all the other effects artists, from painters to the motion control techs, were working towards).