Not incorrect; perhaps incomplete.
I don’t think eilu v’eilu precludes there being an ultimate emes which is in conflict with one or more of the positions. It refers to the process; if two chachomim explore a halachah, and all of the steps are legitimate, Torah based sevaros, the results of the two psakim may be different, because there might have been a conflict between two legitimate sevaros, and each resolved it differently.
Lo bashomayim hi, so we are only held accountable to follow the opinion which has greater weight (yochid v’rabbim, etc.). There is still an ultimate emes; klapei shmaya galya which opinion is correct (perhaps even a third unstated one).
I’ll give a (perhaps imperfect) example. Say a bais din paskens that someone is chayav misah based on two eidim, or a rov, etc. Turns out that the eidim lied, or the metzius was with the miut.
Was putting him to death assur? Klapei shmaya galya that it was, but they were still correct to do it.
I would say the same thing using the word moral. Killing an innocent person is inherently immoral, but they did the right thing.
Same with psak. Say klapei shmaya galya that the Tzitz Eliezer was wrong, but a talmid who is a doctor follows him. Klapei shmaya, what he did was assur and immoral, but after 120, he will get schar for a mitzvah.
My understanding of eilu v’eilu is based on Rashi in Kesubos, and other sources which I can’t pinpoint. It may be in conflict with other opinions on it.