Should a past approval fee affect today's route choice?

A past approval fee belongs in historical cost reporting. It does not become an additional future payment merely because you switch routes. For the next swap, compare the costs that remain necessary from the wallet's current state.

A forward decision example

Suppose you previously spent a hypothetical $2 approving Route A. That payment cannot be recovered by continuing to use A. For the next trade, A offers net value of $995 with no new setup. Route B offers $997 before a new $0.80 approval cost. B leaves $996.20.

For this next trade, B is $1.20 better under the stated values. Adding A's old $2 fee only to B would be incorrect: the old payment happened regardless of which route you now select.

Historical reporting asks another question

If you are reporting the total cost of your activity over the period, include the original $2, any new $0.80, and the completed swaps. The same payment can be irrelevant to a marginal choice yet still belong in the historical ledger.

An allowance authorizes a specific spender. A new route may require new authorization, so the future preparation cost can be real even though an earlier setup payment is sunk.

Do not infer a permission decision from the arithmetic

A previously approved route is not necessarily appropriate merely because it avoids another fee. Nor does a small prospective saving settle whether another permission should be granted. The economic calculation isolates the remaining cost; access and trust considerations require their own assessment.

Record current allowance state, required new operations and current quotes. Avoid projecting an old approval's usefulness across different tokens, contracts or networks. The practical question is simple: which payments and receiving amounts change if you choose A rather than B now? Keep that answer separate from what earlier choices already cost.