I think unfortunately it's not about what seems obvious, or even what seems more likely, but about what seems retrospectively justifiable regardless of outcome.
The incentive structure of this type of decision is 'absolutely under no circumstances existentially mess up'. Ostensibly with respect to the organisation, but in actual reality much more so with respect to the individual(s) involved in the decision.
If everyone else is doing something that kind of obviously makes no sense, and you decide to break from the crowd by instead doing what does make sense, then there's a pretty solid chance of gaining a temporary edge while reality resolves the truth. But those gains probably won't matter all that much for the organisation, or indeed your position within it. It's a solid chance of an unimportant gain.
However on the other hand, there's a tail risk that something very unexpected happens and the thing everyone's doing that makes no sense actually turns out to make sense - sometimes even for entirely unpredictable incidental reasons - and then, well, you're in trouble. Not necessarily 'you' the organisation.. they'll likely be able to catch up and it won't matter that much. But for 'you' personally, the decision maker, it's very much not good.
As a bonus, in the much more likely scenario that the thing that makes no sense turns out to indeed make no sense, you're in the same boat as everyone else, there's no relative loss, and most importantly you don't stick out as someone who did something as risky as to go against the prevailing, albeit pretty clearly nonsensical, sentiment.
So basically, game theory tells you pretty quickly to just go with the thing that makes no sense if you're optimising for some (weighted) cross of what's best for the organisation and yourself as the decision maker.