Yep. Thought it often does a fairly inconsistent job.

OP failed to actually mention or link to any of the discussion and only wrote about it in vague terms. If I hadn't actually linked to the requests and quoted from the messages would you be saying "but it really is an unnecessary change" now?  If you only went on what the OP said, I think it would sound pretty bad...

Unfortunately, there has been a rash of misinformation where I looked at it and thought exactly as you suggested-- this isn't important and other people will handle it-- and then people didn't handle it, and not it's being continually repeated as fact from so many directions that it seems hopeless to correct. (or the corrective effort would be so great that it would just send the wrong message implicitly; and so it goes uncorrected.)

In this case, a pretty clear response took about 12 mouse clicks to bring up all the relevant messages and then copy and paste some quotes... which allowed fully contextualizing the issue. This was easy for me since I saw but didn't participate in the original discussion --  in fact, I thought that the other respondents "had it"-- but seemingly not since it had now spread to here in a more accusatory meta-issue form.

In any case, I hope it was a good investment. I wish I could turn back time and do this in a number of other places.