It’s likely beneficial to be as inclusive as possible when picking two possible changes with the same costs. Comparison between change and no change, though, should not follow the same line of thought, for changing the rules has an inherent cost over not changing.
A comparison between change and no change should absolutely follow the same logic as long as you add that inherent extra cost to the change in the change vs no change scenario. The evaluation process is the same, does the benefit over time outweigh the immediate cost.
Unrelated to the philosophy:
Tom has made a couple of good points in noting how the non negligible benefits of this chain in the post above mine. It is clear that for a negligible cost there are non negligible benefits.