I agree they have a well researched idea of what dollar totals they are likely to need, annually, to support the FA needs of the new class, even with need-blind. Then, they allocate not just that figure, but a bit of slush. When a college starts to run into some squeeze (however they want to define it, in management and accounting terms, eg, post 2008, for some,) there are those which adjusted their policies to be need aware, in whole or in part.
I disagree that standards favor well-to-do kids (at tippy tops.) There is no greater value placed on “high-cost” ECs. There are no better guarantees for high-score kids, as shown by the TTs that report this detail. And just being wealthy doesn’t mean a better app, in whole.
And when we speak of tippy tops. it’s not a kid’s financial circumstances that get him an admit. The ones qualified to do the work for the four years are well able, have records showing that, including good ECs. We’ve got to get past this notion subpar kids (of any sort) are getting some advantage. That includes the stereotype that poor kids with low stats have any advantage.