Copy to local then copy to remote vs. copy to mounted remote

Hi guys. Firstly, I love using and learning about rclone. It is really powerful, stable, and useful software!

Regarding the 'arr media software, many people claim it is best practice to move new files to local storage and then use a scheduled rclone move or copy command to push the new files to the remote. This is usually used in conjunction with a union filesystem like MergerFS. What is the advantage of this method compared to moving new files directly to the mounted remote? Copying directly to the mounted remote intitiates the upload immediately and one can control the transfers using flags in the mount command.

I work on Windows 10, so I am limited to using Rclone Union, which does work quite well. My only issue with the union is I cannot do atomic moves from my downloads folder to the local part of the union and preserve the records in the 'arrs when I upload to the remote.

If pointed at the union, the 'arrs do a copy/delete because they don't see the union as being on the same mount as my downloads folder (which makes sense /D: vs /U:). I thought I could solve this by putting my downloads folder in the union (local part using ff), but then I would still have double writes due to the union caching the files during the download. So I have resolved to deal with extra wear on the SSD with double writes and just copy to the mounted remote. I specify a vfs cache directory on the same drive as my downloads so I don't have excess wear on my boot drive.