Why are the Minor Arcana of the Crystal Tarot (Tarocchi di Vetro) not consistent?

Tl;dr: The deck is gorgeous and great to use, but the artwork clearly wasn't completed as intended. I'm curious if anyone has info about why it was released this way.

I've been spending some time with the 1995 edition of The Crystal Tarots, painted by Elisabetta Trevisan and published by Lo Scarabeo. The majors pull from a few different deck traditions. The minors, throughout the first six/seven cards of each suit and nearly all of the courts, follow the system of Eudes Picard. He was an astrologer who published his version of the tarot in 1909, in a handbook called Manuel Synthétique & Pratique du Tarot.

As an example: Two of Coins with description by E. Picard on the left, the Crystal Tarot version on the right.

Looking closely at the lower pip cards in the Crystal Tarots, you can see that every wand/scepter, cup, coin and sword is unique, they were all individually painted. The backgrounds are beautifully stylized versions of the symbols from the Picard Tarot. When I started comparing, I found myself going "ohHH there are ears of wheat/butterflies/flames here! They're just hidden in the pattern!!" multiple times. But:

Example cards from the Wands and Chalices suits.

• Instead of unique illustrations, the 8-10 of each suit (plus the Seven of Wands) are just edited versions of other cards. Any symbols in the background (like the dog, caduceus and hazel in the Three of Wands, referring to Mercury) make no sense in the context of the edited cards, and are being partially covered up anyway. Not only do they not correspond to the Picard designs anymore, there is no consistency for which card is based on which other one, or how the suit representations are arranged. It seems to just be about filling up space - e.g. the cup that was copied, downsized and squeezed in to make the Ten of Chalices.
• The Knave of Wands is unique artwork, but in contrast to all the other courts, the image doesn't match Picard's description and card design.
• In the Two of Swords, the artwork has randomly been rotated by 180°. I'm assuming this was an accident during the editing for the deck? I've checked more recent editions and it's still upside down after 30 years (there is a new edition coming out in October, will check again then) :D

Knave of Scepters/Wands comparison, and Two of Swords comparison

I've seen this explained in two ways:

1. "The artist must not have done research." But she was clearly using the 1909 sketches and descriptions as a reference.
2. "There were some artistic liberties taken." Implying these were decision she made because she preferred it that way. I could see that with the Knave of Wands. But I can't imagine an artist painstakingly painting 60+ cards and then going "I could paint the rest, but you know what would look even better? A five-minute photoshop job!"

I really, really like the deck - the artwork, where it's unique, is vibrant and clever. I love the gender ambiguity of the Knaves, Knights and many of the majors. And while the Picard designs are historically interesting, I'm not too fussed about astrology and can just use my normal pip associations. But I'm still a little perplexed every time I see the higher number cards.

I'm speculating that there must've been some problem with Elisabetta Trevisan completing the illustrations, and someone (either her or an editor) tried to finish the deck anyway. I've thought way too much about this, and it's become a funny kind of meditation on cutting corners vs. making compromises, in order to get a project done at all.

So I was just wondering if anyone knew the actual events, for example if Lo Scarabeo or Trevisan ever commented on it. Or if any of the newer editions come with an explanation. Thanks for reading :)