Are you saying you were using modus tollens – you can get better (presumed to be accepted by all involved), therefore you can be wrong? This wasn't clear, especially since you agreed that it's an appeal to consequences.

Right. Since I consider epistemic rationality, as any other tool, an arrangement that brings about what I prefer, in itself or instrumentally, I didn't see "appeal to consequences" of a belief sufficiently distinct from desire to ensure the truth of the belief.