This is more for my personal curiosity and will to understand archival standards in general than for the SICF and coinfinds specifically.

As far as I saw and heard a lot of the debate of TIFF vs. JPEG2000 had some core arguments. (As a side note: For all I write here, I mean lossless compression JPEG2000 files.)

Lossless JPEG2000 compression is smaller than TIFF (saves on storage space; was more relevant as an argument in the era 1995-2010 than since then)
JPEG2000 is more resilient than JPG due to the encoding in blocks (that both, TIFF and JPEG2000, are better formats for archival purposes than JPG is rather obvious)
JPEG2000 has advantages when displaying the file in increasingly better quality as more packages are sent over networks (also not as relevant anymore as in 1995-2010 when we're now talking about a server hosted in western Europe and modern network speeds)
JPEG2000 is easily transformed into other formats for different use cases

In regards to data loss in JPEG2000 I saw several papers that implemented methods to handle it. None that I saw could recover the lost data, but there were a lot of methods to conceal errors (not necessarily a good method to treat archival data in my opinion), but there are methods to recover partial data from codeblocks that contain corrupted data points.
This paper for instance proposes methods to recover at least the rest, the uncorrupted data, from codeblocks that would, as a rule in standard JPEG2000 processing, be fully discarded due to the error they contain.
https://uweb.engr.arizona.edu/~bilgin/publications/DCC2003_1.pdf

As far as I can see, for both, TIFF and JPEG2000, data that is lost is not recoverable, and for both not the whole file is corrupted but only parts.

I saw that for instance the library of congress uses TIFF as the format for the archival master file and JPEG2000 as the format for sharing their images.
https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000143.shtml

Have the arguments of file size and package sending error resilience, and iterative quality when loading an image over the internet just lost enough relevance that JPEG2000's advantages are just not significant anymore? And are the limited browser support and encoding processes by now seen as not worth the effort, so that TIFF is the preferred format?

For instance Region of Interest (RoI) information encoding and the metadata options would still look like aspects where JPEG2000 can have advantages, but I feel like I don't know all the arguments for and against the two different file formats.

Is there a relevant argument that I have missed and that is the reason for the prevalence of TIFF in archival workflows for images, while the JPEG2000 format has become established in certain other areas, like medical imaging?

If you have any insights into this discussion I would be very thankful if you can let me know about them. I have heard since probably 2005 about JPEG2000 and am still a bit at a loss as to what arguments sway which organisations or institutions towards the one file format or the other.

(As a side note: A few friends and I are volunteers for a museum in Germany and the digitisation of the collection is one of the undertakings we are working towards. Two of us have been working on a proposal for the digitisation, proposing guidelines regarding the process, data types, encodings etc. for different media types. My friend who did most of the research for this identified for most a clear state of the art that has been established, but for images we did not fully see what we should propose regarding the decision between TIFF and JPEG2000.)