The problems arise in scaling both the making and coating operations.
Not having seen the two facilities, nor the emulsion formulas, I cannot answer that.
I can guess. Based on experience, almost anything can be done such as you propose. All it takes is time and money. Lots of both, but that depends on product and formula differences among other things. Even 'kettle geometry' will affect emulsion quality.
Kodak had an emulsion quality group that worked world wide to compare emulsions and insure that they came out the same everywhere. They met in Rochester about twice a year, and every lab within Kodak had to pass a standard emulsion making test every year. They made an identical emulsion, coated it identically and then compared test results. Those labs that failed were 'uncertified' until the problems could be eliminated.
Regarding the rest of your comment, since Kodak has the lion's share of motion picture film production and Fuji has just about all of the rest, I wonder how much motion picture Agfa Gevaert produces....
My wife recently bought a disposable camera for some quick pictures. It was in a generic cardboard covering but the original camera was Kodak and the camera was "made in china". When the film came back, it was surprisingly good and I thought it was one of the Chinese / Kodak brands, but the edge markings said Agfa.
There's a lot of film used for each motion picture print, so even a small part of the market is still a large volume of film. How economic it is is something else.
As for you wifes rebuilt "Kodak" disposable camera :-) I did some research 2 or 3 years ago into the recycling of disposable cameras. I found a company who bought the bits from the minilabs, they disassembled then rebuilt from the best parts, I guess using whatever brand of film they found to be most cost effective.
Since prints are apt to be degraded during projection, they are built to be more expendable than the camera original. The print film has higher light stability and lower dark stability IIRC. This is to allow high intensity projection without loss of quality. But today's films are a lot better than previous films.
That said, a huge proportion of Kodak's motion picture sale is in Vision print film (Eastman Color Print Film).
I believe that in sheer bulk, the print film far outsells the camera original just due to the way they are used and Kodak has the highest share of both markets.
If I were to ask someone to make Kodabromide paper for me in their facility for example, I would budget a minimum of 1 year, perhaps 2 for the project and a minimum of $100,000 US before the first usable product went out the door.
This assumes they have a full facility and I have a workable small scale single grade formula. It also only budgets for just the one contrast grade. To do more would require more time and money. That is what I would plan on with the expectation of having a good staff and lots of luck. With a good staff and luck it would come in sooner than that.
Everything that failed would teach, but would be nothing but scrap.
That said, a box of 100 8x10 sheets selling for $50 / box retail would take a lot of boxes to pay for the initial investment, interest and etc.
Hope for the best, but plan for the worst is inherent in what I have said above.
I must add that that time scale does not allow sufficient time for real world keeping exposure and processing tests, and a lot of other ancillary real-time testing. It would be going out the door with many parameters untested or partially tested.