Before three-colour Technicolor, two-strip colour was approximate at best; clothing colours as seen on screen were not real or original anyway.
This page at the American Widescreen Museum shows the colours required (scroll down) to obtain the best results with two-strip colour.
Those filmmakers weren’t concerned with goofy-colour reality vs. that on the screen, so IMHO guessing when colourizing is no worse and a lot better.
It’s a terrific site, BTW.
Martin Scorsese shot the first part of The Aviator in two-color (or converted it in post) because he felt it better represented the era. First time I saw it I thought, “Am I crazy or are those beets blue?!”
Back 20+ years when the whole Turner colorization thing started I read an article that stated there were two main production companies that did it. One prided itself on doing thorough research in finding what the actual costumes & sets colors were. The other felt that was unnecessary and based their choices purely on visual aesthetics (and an eye on style histories). Since this had to be cheaper my guess is that, except for famous films, this is the more common practice.
Back to the OP - other than for historic/factual points, like getting the US flag colors right, what difference does it make how clothing, furniture, and backgrounds are colored? Is Wonderful Life diminished because Jimmy’s suit is tan instead of light gray? Or a car is one shade instead of another?
I’d generally argue that colorizing at all diminishes the work more than any details about colors.
I believe it’s more complicated than that - he shot each of four segments in the (post-produced) color technology of that era. Interesting exercise, although I don’t know that it really added to the film. Yes, the peas were aquamarine. 