The way the loop point of the sampled audio is exposed at 1:48 when the sweeping sound in the original just cuts out is a small thing, but it IS sloppy.
Anyway, this is just accent instrumentation layered over the original audio, slightly sped up, and IMO is a violation of our standards. Let's even give it the benefit of the doubt and say (read: pretend) the source tune is recreated not sampled; compared to the source tune, it still sounds the same, there's no meaningful difference in the instrumentation, tone, or textures of the source tune, and the supporting instruments come in at the same time as the original. It might as well be the verbatim original with a slightly faster tempo, and no other substantial arrangement.
Other than a slight tempo increase, there are 0 meaningful changes to the source tune itself, and none of the added instrumentation directly arranges the source or provides enough substance to stand apart enough from the original. It's an enjoyable track, but a very simplistic arrangement.
I think the key difference between this and "Power Glove (It's So Bad)" is there's nothing creatively done with the sampled source tune audio. It's a perfectly fine track, but it falls outside of what we can accept for OCR. It's not enough to merely take (or recreate) original audio and lightly build around it, you have to substantially arrange the source tune.
NO