It looks like he is implying that the sub-title burn-ins were printed into the internegative. But he says other videos used the internegatives, and those were blank with electronic subtitles. Same with if they used the archival low-con prints.

So, number one where were they getting their prints, and number two if they were all blank too, then just when did the theatrical subtitles get printed in? In the release print printing stage at the very end?

I don't really know what is normal regarding subtitle printing processes so I can't say if this is usual or makes sense.

Also, it makes sense now knowing the 1993 print was different from the previous ones, and the ones made for the 1985 home video IP. I had no idea. It was a source that was brand new to home video! That's why it is so grainy compared to other ones. It wasn't the same print. It wasn't just that the transfer made the grain more apparent, these were just grainier prints that had never been used before.

But what totally contradicts this is that these are supposedly the original IPs! The earliest generation source possible. So that doesn't make sense. How could the earlier generation be grainier than later? But he even remarks at how grainy the prints are, almost like it was surprising. They had to use heavy DVNR machines as he said. So, why is the grain only a problem when they go back to the earliest generation source? It should be the least grainy of them all.

My theory is that maybe that print isn't what they thought it was.