> Depending on policy to mitigate this annex malleability vector could mislead developers into believing their transactions are immune to replacement, when in fact they might not be.
The issue I'm talking about is where someone's transaction is denied entry into the mempool entirely because a counter-party decided to put in a strictly worse transaction for miners by bloating the weight of it, not adding fees. A strictly worse "API" for paying miners for no gain seems like a bad trade to me, especially when there are reasonable methods for mitigating this.