@ucbalumnus What you describe may exist but I’ve worked for two “need blind/full need” colleges and we never received the sort of “directions” you describe. Indeed, we always needed to complete the docket read by early March so that the files of those admitted and requesting financial aid could be matched and the financial aid office could begin assembling offers. I recall one year the President said that there was a bottom to the pool of financial aid funds but that had never been reached.
The issues you describe regarding “weighting” were also agreed each year with the faculty committee on admissions. I never recall financial issues being discussed but there always was a lot of debate over test scores and “weighted” grades. We also used the advocacy approach so it was up to each officer to argue the case of students who might have been scored low on one particular dimension. Not infrequently, a student was admitted who initially was rated lower on the scale. But what would perhaps surprise people is that many “highly rated” students were ultimately rejected following committee or subcommittee discussions when people felt that their other factors weren’t that impressive.
To be honest, what you describe makes a mockery of need blind admissions. It may indeed exist but I’m glad I never experienced it, and from students I have subsequently worked with, they haven’t experienced the effects of the policies you describe either.