I doubt that, taken alone, most of the "language tweak"-grade changes would meet the level of motivation required. However, as the language evolves, many such small inconsistencies will accumulate. It's not inconceivable that a Rust edition 6 to 10 years from now might resolve to fix a number of these inconsistencies, in the interest of making the language more uniform, because the collective burden they impose is greater than any of them individually.
That argument, of course, relies upon an uncertain future. I offer it only because it mitigates @jjpe's issue number 3 here.
I believe the social costs justify your assertion that these changes should not be made arbitrarily. My assertion is that releases are too arbitrary, but editions are not. Editions represent a break with old habits; they can be relied upon to ameliorate the social costs, when used responsibly.
I agree that minor changes like this likely have low or negative value individually. They might make an interesting use-case for Niko's RFC-repo idea, however, containing a swarm of micro-RFCs that eliminate "death by a thousand papercuts".