Should you over-design for cost purposes?
Suppose you're working on a renovation/replacement project. There's a piece of equipment that may or may not need to be replaced, and you can't know until the contractor starts construction.
Let's say that there's a ~60% chance that it does NOT need to be replaced, but it could be expensive to replace it if needed.
Automatically call for replacement, because if things go south, the engineer eats the cost (depending on contingency and everything). Safer for your firm, but drives up cost for the client, and might introduce unnecessary work.
Assume it does NOT need to be replaced, because there's a 60% chance it is fine, and it saves the client money in the long run because the contractor won't pass the cost on to the client.
Put a conditional note on the drawing to inspect and replace the equipment if certain conditions are not met (being careful and precise with your language). That way the contractor (who presumably has more field experience and cost-estimation skills than the engineer) can judge what is actually necessary and assign an expected value.
I work with more senior engineers who love option 1, and that just feels like a waste to me. If something has a 20% chance of replacement, I would rather call out 2, but for anything higher, I prefer 3.