A built-in advantage for the simplistic conservative

Peace and blessings,
In your last lesson in the series ‘Thinking about Halacha’, you dealt with conservatism, and you made a division between ‘simple conservatism’ and ‘midrashic conservatism.’ In the lesson, you claimed that there is a tendency among people to think that when they express ‘simple conservatism’ they are ‘playing it safe.’ However, you claimed that this is not accurate. Let’s say, in accepting testimony from women, the ‘simple conservative’ who is not accepting, if he is wrong, then there is a very heavy price for this. So in any case, the prices are in all directions.
I accept this argument, but I do think that there is an additional consideration – do not do it – in cases of doubt, the Shulchan is a consideration that must be taken into account. Thus, the ‘simple conservative’ upholds this rule, while the ‘midrashic conservative’ has the burden of proof, since he is against this rule.
Now, I would like to ask: Do you accept that there is weight to the rule of ‘sit down and do nothing’? That is, sometimes it is thought to be a purely behavioral rule only in the case of ‘playing it safe.’ However, in my opinion, there is an a priori guiding rule here. Namely, that a person who changes the norm has the burden of proof. Agree?
It is important to note that even if we accept that there is weight to this rule, it still does not automatically mean that the preference is always for the ‘simple conservative’, since in cases where the price is high, then the preference is for the ‘midrashi conservative’. Let’s say in a situation where testimony is received from women, not receiving it is a price that I think is too much to bear. Therefore, logic is on the side of the ‘midrashi conservative’, even though he is in ‘rise and do’.
I extended. In short, do you accept that there is a built-in advantage for the simple conservative since he passively continues reality, while the Midrashic conservative who demands active change has the duty of proof (unless, as mentioned, the price for good)?