Why isn't source considered while determining location of IR for copy activity?

This is an excerpt from the Azure IR documentation:

For copy activity, a best effort is made to automatically detect your sink data store's location, then use the IR in either the same region, if available, or the closest one in the same geography, otherwise; if the sink data store's region is not detectable, the IR in the instance's region is used instead.

I want to ask if the sink location is not detectable, then instead of falling back to ADF's location, shouldn't the source location be considered? It might be that the ADF's location is the same as the source data store, but it's not always the case. Also, even if this is the case, what is the benefit of moving the IR to the sink data store? In between sink and source, the IR would always be far away from one of them, so network transfer costs and other things would always occur.

I posted the question on the Microsoft Q&A platform as well. Here are the essential points from the answer posted there. Here is the link to that answer - link.

Why IR Closer to Sink?

• Data Transfer Minimization: The rationale is to minimize the distance over which data is transferred during the write operation, which is often the more intensive part of the data transfer process. Data transfer costs are generally higher when moving data into cloud storage (write operation) compared to reading from it (read operation).
• Latency Considerations: Writes are usually less tolerant to latency compared to reads, especially for operations like database inserts or data lake writes where transaction commit times matter.

The idea to fallback to the source is valid feedback and could be posted on this feedback forum. It doesn't seem too crucial to me right now, so I didn't post it. But, if anyone feels it is crucial, then he/she can post it.