I would certainly agree that at some point, fuel will cause an uptick in wear. But, until you continue to test it, you'll not know where that point is ....
Don't think that just because your wear may go up a tad, that your engine is going to self destruct and puke itself on the roadside. A logical approach would be to see what your running average Fe/1k mi is. If you can get a few consistent UOAs that show you it's reasonably steady, then use that as a baseline and then continue to extend lube use until you get a significant rise in wear.
Example ...
If Fe is running 2.8ppm/1k miles, and you have a "normal" sigma variation of .4ppm/1k mi, then if it gets up over 4.0ppm, you're no longer "normal" in wear.
IOW ... if your "normal" wear would vary from 2.8ppm up to 3.2ppm for a stdev, then you'd be reasonably safe as it rises/falls centered around that 2.8ppm. But when you see the average start to trend past the second sigma (approximately 3.6ppm/1k miles), then it's time to watch for that 4.0ppm value. Once there, time to OCI.
(all other things presumed to be reasonable in other wear metals ... for the example)
Fuel is just an input to the operational conditions. What we should focus on is wear. Inputs are predictors; outputs are results.
Fuel, vis, FP, TBN/TAN, etc are all conditional cautionary markers, but they do NOT assure wear is affected most of the time. They only note that conditions may change to affect wear in the future. Hence, when inputs shift, it's time to pay closer attention to wear, not automatically OCI.