 Based on the process variants and execution times provided, there are several differences in the processes and outcomes between the protected and unprotected groups. Here are some of the main differences:

1. Loan Approval Rate: The unprotected group has a higher loan approval rate (1656 out of 5110 or 32.4%) than the protected group (39 out of 2015 or 1.9%). This suggests that the unprotected group is more likely to have their loans approved than the protected group.
2. Examination Process: The unprotected group has a skip examination process (skipped\_examination) that is not present in the protected group. This suggests that the unprotected group may be subject to less stringent examination processes than the protected group.
3. Application Rejection Rate: The protected group has a higher application rejection rate (960 out of 2015 or 47.6%) than the unprotected group (664 out of 5110 or 13%). This suggests that the protected group is more likely to have their loan applications rejected than the unprotected group.
4. Loan Denied Process Variants: The protected group has more process variants that result in loan denial compared to the unprotected group. Additionally, the protected group has process variants that involve more steps, such as making multiple visits to assess collateral and requesting a co-signer on the loan. This suggests that the protected group may be subject to more complex and onerous loan denial processes than the unprotected group.
5. Execution Time: The unprotected group generally has shorter execution times for their process variants compared to the protected group. This suggests that the unprotected group may be processed more quickly than the protected group.

Overall, the main differences between the treatment of the protected and unprotected groups suggest that the protected group may be subject to more rigorous examination processes, higher rejection rates, and more complex loan denial processes than the unprotected group. Additionally, the unprotected group may be subject to less stringent examination processes and quicker processing times. These differences may indicate unfair treatment of the protected group and warrant further investigation.