Based on these process variants, several potential unfair differences between the protected group and the unprotected group can be observed:

1. Frequency of Appointment Denial: Request Appointment -> Appointment Denied appeared 599 times in the protected group vs 363 times in the unprotected group, suggesting that the protected groups might be experiencing more frequent appointment denials compared to the unprotected group.

2. Application Rejection: The protected group also experiences a higher frequency of application rejections after the borrowers information has been verified, compared to the unprotected group (960 vs 664). This could suggest potential unfair treatment.

3. Process Complexity: The process variants listed for the protected group frequently include more process steps compared to the unprotected group. This includes additional steps such as "Request Co-Signer On Loan", "Make Visit to Assess Collateral" which might be an indication of more complex and perhaps more burdensome loan approval process for the protected group. Such steps appear less frequently in the process variants for the unprotected group.

4. Loan Sign Offs: There are more instances where the unprotected group manages to sign the loan agreement after the file has been submitted to the underwriter (1656 times) compared to the protected group (just 31 times).

5. Time: On an average, the process variants for the protected group seem to take more time (performance) compared the unprotected group, suggesting that the loan application process might move slower for the protected group.

6. There is an instance where a step skipped (skipped_examination) in the process for the unprotected group which didn't occur in the protected group. This could potentially indicate a kind of preferential treatment.

Remember to take into account that the analysis above is based on the dataset provided, so these remarks are specific to this data and might not generalize to other scenarios. Also, while these differences exist in the data, it should be emphasised that they do not inherently imply discrimination or bias, but may be influenced by a range of other factors that we cannot see from this information. Further analyses and insights would be needed to draw strong conclusions around fairness and bias.