Indie ADR: Critical vs. Luxury Fixes When Director Wants It All?

Hey everyone, as a documentary editor, I'm constantly learning the ropes on narrative projects. I'm currently cutting an indie feature, shot mostly on an FX3 and some Pocket 6K cams, with audio grabbed on MKH 8060s and a Sound Devices 888. Our post-production budget is, shall we say, 'lean.' We're approaching ADR, and a common piece of advice I see is to tier the budget: critical fixes first, then 'luxuries' if funds allow.

Here's my dilemma: the director is incredibly detail-oriented, and rightly so. For them, every single performance nuance, every slight vocal hesitancy that wasn't quite perfect on set, feels 'critical.' If an actor's line read changes the subtext, even subtly, they want to ADR it. I understand the artistic drive, but where do you draw the line between a genuinely unintelligible line or a sound issue (which is obviously critical) and a director's desired performance tweak which, while valid, might blow our already tight budget?

I've tried explaining the cost implications, suggesting we focus on technical necessities first, but it's hard to argue against an artistic vision. For those of you who've navigated this on indie projects with limited resources, how do you manage expectations and define 'critical' ADR when the director sees everything as essential to their vision?