Maintainability and readability are two sides to the same coin. It's not exactly rocket science to cook up an example situation where making a change in one place is less maintainable than making it in two, because of overly DRY, overly abstracted nonsense leading to a _single_ place to change that's so far removed from where you'd expect it to be that it takes much longer and is much more wrought with risk than just having to do it twice.

Doing something twice is not an anathema, that's my point, not when doing it twice is a cognitively easier and practically faster task.

In almost every case, bugs are the result of human error, and keeping cognitive load as low as possible reduces the likelihood of human error in all cases. As DRY as possible is very rarely the lowest cognitive load possible.