The problem with the statement "is the standard model incorrect" is that "the standard model" is a bit of a moving target.
Neutrinos for example are not fully understood since we found neutrino masses, and this is an active area of research[1]. However depending on who you ask, they may say neutrino masses is part of the standard model or it's beyond the standard model (ie "new physics"). AFAIK those that say it's part of the standard model include some extension or modification[2] in their definition of the standard model which the other folks consider as something extra.
So from what I can gather asking "is the standard model incorrect?" is a bit like asking "can I run this RISC V program on this RISC V processor?" The answer kinda depends on which extensions you include in the base definition.
There have been many "hmm, that's odd from a Standard Model point of view". The only one that has definitely been verified is nonzero neutrino masses, which were easily incorporated into the SM. There are still many open puzzles and tantalizing hints.
