the malleable nature of software in the modern era means that it’s now possible to release products before they’re actually ready.It isn't really the case that digital reproduction can't be improved while analog representation can (with improved tech), however. It points at a more interesting discussion (to me at least) about how any preservation effort is a kind of curation. It is a political act, albeit a subtle one.
Even the brand new media that I consume today is generally curated. My "smart" TV does a wide range of modifications to the digital image it displays before it reaches my eyes. Getting it to give me an "honest" version of any video is remarkably difficult, and that's before it even hits the physical layer of anti-glare coating or intermediary layers like ambient-light dimming.
And who's to say what the canonical version ought to be anyway? Was digital input assuming a particular interpretation for its output? Perhaps it was targeting some assumptions about the average display? Did you really do it right if you try to reproduce a book, and you reproduce it as if it was freshly printed, even though it was first printed 140 years ago? Or did you "do it right" if you emulate the effect of the book freshly printed 140 years ago and then very very carefully stored for 140 years?
Back when I was a professional musician, I would always listen to the recorded "digital canonical" version on med-range monitors, high-end headphones, and super cheap car-stereo speakers, to get a sense of how it would sound in each medium. But I can never know exactly how it hits the record that really matters, which is the particular influence on the brains of the listeners.
Ultimately, you do what seems right, which in turn has more to do with evolution than correctness, even if your goal is transparent correctness.
And then WE ALL REJECTED THIS INSANITY because it made .PNG images a pain in the butt to work with since the gamma corrected image wouldn't match the RGB values of the surrounding document (see: CSS color codes). Then Ye ol' .GIF enjoyed being the pixel perfectionist's choice of image format for the web for quite a while longer. I once was forced to write a script that chopped up a 24bit images into a bunch of 16px by 16px .GIFs (one palette entry per pixel, 256 total).
Digital doesn't usually need to be restored as long as it is replicated often enough (before bit-rot sets in). However, I've got a large number of tools for restoring spinning disks (migration to new hardware isn't easy for the average end-user).
Let's say a modern game came out that had a capability to demand of a GPU more polygons/paritcles than capable today... but in the future those capabilities might exist. Digital media could be improved by adding more/better compute resources (if originally designed to scale, that is). Then there will be curmudgeons (like me) that think things were better before the edge users' hardware became a giant supercompute cluster / distributed storage...
Edit the models to ease the parsimony of triangles, rework the textures , render on a modern engine with cleaned up effects, higher DPI and color accuracy, repeat until done.
It could even be a model for buying defunct CGI studios for their data and rights. In case some cult classic they worked on wants to be rereleased some day at 16K.
I do wish that published software had a maximum license life, much like patents that would allow archiving.