I will concede that in my comment I went a bit too far in saying that the sunk cost fallacy requires a "net detriment" since as you point out, there could be a

I will concede that in my comment I went a bit too far in saying that the sunk cost fallacy requires a "net detriment" since as you point out, there could be a situation where someone's sunk cost reasoning is not detrimental but still fallacious. Although I think in the devised scenario, your choice to use rental desk A would indeed be reasonable. The rental desk will incur all the wear and tear while the identically owned desk can be preserved in good condition or perhaps resold at a profit. While in such a scenario you might interpret your desire to use A as irrationally based on the sunk cost, I think it more likely that some inchoate awareness of the true benefits would come into play. How about that. You're so smart that even your dumb decisions end up being pretty smart.