It depends on the definition of "color". For us humans, in our everyday life, the abstraction we have in our mind is more meaningful than the wavelength, which is what formally defines a color, but not how we cognitively perceive it

I meant spectrum as in it's not a fixed value but, fine, I can call it range instead. Doesn't change my argument.

What do you mean "hasn't been produced before"? That comes with a huge burden of proof. People produce color gradients all the time. Pretty many colors in them.

And if you produce a shade of blue that by happenstance is either more or less saturated than anything else, what have you found there? It isn't a new color by any meaningful definition. It won't blow anyone's mind, it's just a shade of blue similar but not identical to other blue shades. It falls into the blue range. The observable light is devided into colors, each inhabiting a range. The exact way is different depending on language and other contexts but by no meaningful definition is a color just a single value.

Before you double down on your definition: the implication is that your definition doesn't make much sense and to demonstrate it from a different angle: how precise are you going to measure these? Let's say a common blue has the saturation of 63%, would 64% quality as a new color? What about 63.2%? Where do you draw the line? And if you have to draw lines anyway, why not choose a meaningful way as in defining "blue" as one color?