When does 'motivated lighting' become a hindrance vs. a help?

Hey everyone, I'm finding myself in a bit of a quandary regarding motivated lighting. We all know the drill from film school: light should always have a source, 'Sicario' is the gold standard, etc. And honestly, for a lot of projects, that approach just works. We're currently shooting a psychological thriller on an ALEXA Mini and a V-RAPTOR XL, and I'm trying to stick to the 'motivated' playbook as much as possible for the grittiness, playing with practicals and bouncing a Quasar science tube here and there to extend a window light.

But I'm hitting situations, especially with tighter close-ups later in the story, where strictly adhering to a visible source feels like it's fighting the desired emotional impact. Sometimes a character's face needs to be lit in a way that just doesn't make sense with the established 'source' in the scene, or an unmotivated slash of light would just sell the mood better.

So, my question is: in your experience, when do you consciously decide to 'cheat' with unmotivated light for narrative clarity, emotional impact, or even just a more aesthetically pleasing image, even if it breaks the 'rules'? Are there specific genres or scene types where you find yourselves ditching textbook motivation entirely?