WrongBot doesn't want the "dangerous thoughts" to influence him to revise his beliefs and values. That wasn't the case for you: you didn't want to avoid revising your beliefs about your paper; you just didn't want to deal with the cognitive distraction of it during the short term.

The beliefs that I didn't want to revise were my beliefs about the contents of the reports. Before I read them, my beliefs about their contents were general and vague. Were I to read the reports, I would have specific knowledge about what they said. My worry was that this would revise my values: after gaining that specific knowledge, my brain would excessively value replying to the reports over working on my current project. Despite my intention to focus solely on my current project, my brain would allocate significant resources to composing responses to what I'd read in the reports.

But there's another difference here: when you decided to not expose yourself to that knowledge, you knew at the time when the safe conditions would occur, and that those conditions would occur very soon.

But in the "twiddled" version, I don't know when the safe conditions will occur . . .

That's not the case for WrongBot, who has sworn off certain kinds of knowledge indefinitely.

To be fair, WrongBot thinks that we will be able to learn this knowledge eventually. We just shouldn't take it as obvious that we know what the safe conditions are yet.