Potassium sulfate is certainly going to be the quickest way to solve your issues. If you can source a ton of banana, especially peels, that does have a reasonable amount of it, as does fish. If you could ferment some fish (will smell horrible), that can be great addition for your soil as well. Wood ash can be worked with, but you need to source the wood to burn in the first place, and I know in the tropics it's not the same as what we have here in North America where you have falling pine and oak annually, or need to do tons of pruning anyways so it's free flowing.
I practice permaculture techniques as much as possible, but when I need real fuel, I rely on commercial fertilizers. The combination of both strategies is what will yield the best results. At my old place, the soil was completely devoid of anything really, just sugary sand. Once I had established a reasonable soil biome, the fertilizer requirements seemed to fall off entirely, but I did not keep my foot off the synthetic fertilizer the entire time. I stopped seeing deficiencies, and the trees fruited splendidly. It was especially crazy to go back this year to meet the new owners, and see my fruit trees were in spectacular condition without the usual fertilizing I did.
This all sounds like the voice of experience. The problem is a lot of people think it has to be one approach vs. the other. I'm not sure how to reach those folks.
The best bet here for free goodies, is probably coffee pulp. I'm pretty sure the people in the village basically waste it. We've gotten small amounts before to throw in our compost pile. The problem with steep, large and inaccesible properties is the volume of some of those alternative amendments required. I think it makes the most sense to find the most concentrated form of whatever is needed, and figure out how to apply it in such a way that won't damage the plants, soil life, or leach away.
There's a lot of "low-hanging fruit" in terms of nutrients that are needed in very small quantities that can be remedied without too much struggle. I've got a video in the pipleline of us applying Selenium, for example.
Arguing against myself-
IF there was a larger concentration of nutrients further down in the soil than where you took your sample from (I have no clue if this is true for you) it is possible the plants (with long enough roots, also unsure if this is the case with Mexican sunflower) the plants could move minerals from lower soil tiers to higher soil tiers. I also assume your trees would have to have shallow roots and not be able to access the nutrients on their own
It's also possible if you had areas of the land that are not used for growing anything and you planted Mexican sunflower there, then chop and dropped them at the base of the trees you could "concentrate" the nutrients closer to the tree, assuming whatever area the Mexican sunflower was growing was initially unavailable to the feeder roots of the trees
I've actually pondered this a lot. I know some of the lab results were flawed, and I'm pretty sure all soil tests are innately limited. I'm not sure if this is correct, but it seems like soil tests just treat a property as if the soil were only so deep, and below that it's just some purely inert material devoid of any nutrients. A lot of soils in the tropics, like Ultisols, for example, are known for having good anion exchange capacity (think sulfates, nitrates, chlorides) in the subsoil. So, I'd be curious what testing would reveal if I dug down to one meter or more. Unfortunately, the cations are almost universally leached in these situations.