When I recommend a lower scanning speed, I sometimes say "as long as you can successfully read it back in whatever drive it's meant for, fine". And I know drives have been known to exaggerate at high speeds, or drop samples, or actually report a better burn (because of does samples or whatever).
I acknowledge the above burn as an example where a high speed scan helps... But then, if I recommend a TRT (playback in whatever drive it's meant for), and it comes back that there was a struggle, then I don't even care about the scan.
I just have more history with slower scans working better for me and my hardware. If things work better otherwise for others, though, then cool!
I'll try to recommend a range of speeds to users in the future as a reflection of your experience.