I often find, particularly when deep in high stakes live MTTs, that I'm battling with myself over either taking lines I believe to be optimal (taking ICM into consideration) or taking lower variance lines that may diverge from this. 

I think most people would agree if you were taking a shot in a good live cash game for 5x your normal stake you may tighten up and not take every spot you would at your regular stake. A determinant for BRM is certainly player style dependant (this is mainly in a live setting where everyone playing similar GTO styles isn't so predominant), so if adjusting your style of play means you're now rolled for a shot at a good game then that certainly seems like the optimal move. 

So when you're say final 50/500 in a big MTT that is also a shot, you're effectively playing for 10+x your normal stake. In this situation, taking lower variance lines to minimise huge equity swings you're not otherwise rolled to take also seems reasonable. I know there's a lot of factors that come into these decisions, like your skill edge over the remaining field.. But I mean could it ever be correct for 2 players of exactly the same skill level to take two different lines in the same spot based on their bankrolls? Or the same player to take two different lines in the same spot based on the stage of the tournament and the equity at stake? Say an aggro SB opens to 2.5x and you have 30bb in the BB with 77. The chip EV including ICM considerations, may say it's marginally optimal to 3b induce. However the lowest variance line which may not cost you too much value would be just to shove. Would it ever be correct to take one line in an early stage of a tournament, and a different one later in a tournament, or differing ones based on our bankroll?

It's likely that this is all nonsense as BRM affecting how you should play just seems wrong, but it is certainly something that feels extremely natural in-play, so thought I would entertain the idea.