Harmy said:

The thing is, even though it may have happened by accident, that accident is a part of the history of the film, since this particular damage was most likely on the original negative, so it's not that easy. It's like 99,9% of dirt in Puggo Grande is specific to that print but these burnmarks are something that all the prints had in common.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I definitely will restore them, I'm just trying to explain why I'm even considering it.

If you go down that line of reasoning, isn't it like saying, "Well, Star Wars went from film, to laserdisc, then was ported over to DVD, and along the way a number of visual artifacts (DVNR, jaggies, etc.) were introduced, but hey, all that preserves the history of what this movie went through, so it stays?"

Does Mike Verta have any comment on this particular issue? What's his sources reveal regarding the mark?