A introduces finality that B does not

A = Verso's ending

B = Maelle's ending

The common interpretation of Maelle's ending is that she's doomed to continue the cycle started by Alicia, that she will refuse to leave the painting, and that the Dessendre family will continue to suffer.

In Verso's ending, the painting is destroyed, and the common interpretation is that, in time, Maelle and the rest of the Dessendre family will overcome their grief.

But there's no more certainty for the latter than there is for the former. We don't see the longterm outcome of either choice, yet only one ending introduces an element of finality with no certainty that it will lead to a better future. The painting can always be destroyed, but it can never be remade as it was once the chroma is gone.

For all we know, Maelle might continue the cycle if the painting is left around, or she might break it. Conversely, Maelle and the rest of the Dessendre family might overcome their grief if the painting is destroyed, or it could cause them to fall into a deeper depression.

Either way, finality does not guarantee closure, nor does it increase its likelihood, especially when it comes at the cost of another's agency. However, that's not an endorsement of one ending over the other. On the contrary, I see them as complimentary. Two halves of a whole that, together, say: "Based on the information presented up until this point, there is no right answer." It simply comes down to which path you believe has the potential for the better future.