Not quite. Perhaps I was a bit "telegraphic". To explain the point more fully, there is at least one camera maker which does offer a choice of with/without the filter. In that case they can tell you quickly and easily about the implications of the choice. If it were to be more refined than that - say three options: heavy filter, light filter, no filter, we are entering new territory and along with that users - even sophisticated ones - would need to be more carefully educated about the extent to which problems are likely to occur or not occur and what to do about them as a function of the filter choice they make. Then having made that choice, once they see the results they may or may not be happy about it, which adds a layer of issues to after-sales support for the camera manufacturer - either exchanging the camera or replacing the filter, and at whose cost? I know we're just talking hypothetical stuff here, but once such an idea is raised, which may indeed not be a bad idea, it is also worthwhile trying to conjure the implications at the same time. That can shed light on whether the idea is likely to see the light of day (pun intended). Hope that helps.
As I suspected, your statement was one of general speaking. And I do believe if there was ever something like this , the uniformed would probably be the first to critisise others over there own bad decision.
As there are no pro canon bodies without the filter, a little bit of trial and error would come into play I suspect.
Anyway, I know where you are comming from, I just thought I should respond to get clarification, thanks.