("Willing to go pretty damn far.")
I honestly would prefer (if at all possible) to never modify a plan in the last ~6 hours or so of the deadline.
This was in a younger time, before we'd had experiences that taught us that lesson, thankfully nonlethally.
I'd like to pose an alternate hypothesis, which is that this particular edit being made in proximity to a deadline was not in fact the cause of the error, so much as a failure in judgement and lack of critical review.
"But Vecht, if you make edits close to the deadline then people have less of an opportunity to review them!"
...Okay, so review the edits thoroughly, get impartial feedback, and
then make the modification only if it makes sense to do so. This may preclude making edits closer to deadlines, but you still aren't avoiding the edits
because of the deadlines.
"But people are tired and more likely to make mistakes when staying up late!"
...Okay, so don't make edits or suggestions when you are impaired or otherwise mentally compromised. This may preclude making edits or suggestions closer to deadlines, but you still aren't avoiding the edits or suggestions because of the deadlines.
"But there are flaws or inadequacies in the leading plan!"
...Okay, so vote in a minimally risky fallback plan and take the hit to xp and effectiveness of action. If the situation is high-stakes enough to be a cause for concern, then counterfactually have made your plan much sooner and/or update on collective competency with regard to the planning fallacy.
Logically, there is not a distinction between a one hour interval ending thirty six hours before the plan deadline, and a one hour interval ending five minutes before the deadline (assuming no further action is taken afterwards). The timing itself is not cause for excessive paranoia, which is itself a far greater harm.
E: "But I didn't see it / didn't get to vote for or against it!"
Okay, but it got enough votes to win anyway, or didn't. What's the problem, again?