It is not just "more meta" versus "less meta". On any level one can do the right thing, do the wrong thing, do it skillfully, or do it clumsily.

Problem is, many intelligent people seem to have a bias "any meta is good meta". The advantages of going meta are obvious to intelligent people. But there are also dangers: meta can be attractive for the wrong reasons. It allows one to avoid work; so a choice between "more meta" or "less meta" is influenced by laziness. It allows one to avoid updating (if "updating" is "meta work", then I see a pattern here), because the more meta one is, the further one is from experience, so the pressure of reality is weaker.

We can go meta to avoid reality, and at the same time pretend we do it because we try to be better at handling reality. We should check whether the meta level is really helpful, but we can always avoid it by saying "it does not seem helpful now, but in the long run it will be helpful", although we have no evidence for that. (There is an evidence that in general, going meta can be helpful. But I'm talking about a lack of evidence that this specific instance of going meta is helpful.)

If going meta makes you achieve your goals, then you are doing it right. Perhaps it's not the best way, but at least it is better than nothing. If your ability to make goals and achieve them is improving, that's evidence that you are doing the right thing at the second meta level too. But the evidence appears at the bottom level; without it, all the meta work would be useless.