I think you may have gotten the wrong impression about why I brought up Chesteron's Fence. It's not about blindly following a process; it's about understanding

I think you may have gotten the wrong impression about why I brought up Chesteron's Fence. It's not about blindly following a process; it's about understanding what risk the process is trying to mitigate. “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” This means somebody needs to first understand the reasoning behind it. If, as in your example, that rationale no longer holds, getting rid of that step is perfectly inline with the principle. I would argue that if somebody truly understood the process there would be no issue with changing it.