Here's my take on it:
The Technicolor prints provide us two very important pieces of information -
1) The actual look of prints in 1977.
2) Proof of the wildly inconsistent color timing seen throughout the film.
In my discussions with members of the original production crew, it is absolutely clear that the color inconsistencies do NOT represent intention. For a given sequence, color timing was intended to be at least internally consistent, though not necessarily universally consistent. That is to say that for a given setpiece, the timing of footage shot on that set might vary depending on a scene's position within the film and given the emotional/dramatic needs of the scene. But, again, within any given scene, it wasn't supposed to jump around as wildly as it did. I've heard many reasons for the drifts; reasons forgivable, understandable, reasonable, unavoidable, typical... and ultimately, just "how it was."
My personal approach in restoration is a tiered one. Legacy has two versions: Archival, and Signature. Archival is warts-and-all. Signature follows intent. If 9/10ths of the shots in the lightsaber sequence were timed the same way (or reasonably so) and the remaining 1/10th is wildly different, it wasn't the intention, and so I balance the scene internally, while maintaining the overall grading for the scene. This ultra blue timing is not motivated by a dramatic need or intent. It's an error. It's a charming error, and respect for it is why Legacy Archival exists. Some people like it on principle, other people will be jarred by it, because we're far more accustomed to balanced color, now. 1977 eyes were far less demanding, scrutinizing, or sensitive.
In terms of preserving the Tech look for the Harmy version, I might recommend you consider that you're not getting the Tech look, anyway, no matter what. Neither sRGB nor NTSC colorspaces can accurately represent the look of the film as projected, so you might as well place your Principled Perfectionist caps on the table and take a step back. Even the luminance curves/ranges of any of our monitors are wildly different from projected sources, and if you wanted it to look on your monitor like it does projected, you'd simply have to go back-and-forth between a projected version of the film and match it by eye, based on perceptual approximation. It's a murky, murky world.
So, personally, given all the above conditions, I would probably vote for bringing those two bastards in line. It's still Star Wars, folks, and a shit-ton more Star Wars than most anything else, and certainly moreso than you're getting from LFL anytime soon.
Nobody is going to accuse us of not having respect for, nor failing to give great consideration to these issues, but we must preserve at least a modicum of logic, reason, and sanity and acknowledge differences in the mediums which prevent anything from being absolutely 100% "definitive." Digital ain't as good as film in so many respects. Period. The work continues, nonetheless, with love and passion.
_Mike