The previous reasons given for why people flushed before harvest were tested and found not true. It has zero impact on mineral content of flower. Then, they made up new reasons. Interpret that as you like. Blind taste test with an insufficient sample size showed that people could not discern between a flushed and non-flushed harvest.
If it doesn't change molecular constitution of the flower, how exactly is it impacting the flower?
Flushing impacts the medium. It will dilute it. It doesn't impact how the flower was constructed in the several weeks leading up to flushing, even if it did have an impact on flower constitution. There is no mineral excretion system in the plant. Once it is taken in it is either used fast enough or builds up to problematic levels if given enough time. Avoid that and there is no reason to flush. Usually you can just give plain water for an irrigation or two to course correct level of nutrition in the medium. You have to ignore a problem for a long time to justify stressing the rootzone and running extra gallons through it.
it's a drastic tool to correct previous fertilization mistakes that can be avoided.
You can be lazy the last couple weeks if you have a strong canopy. If you water soil to saturation with minimal runoff, there's plenty of nutrients that can be sucked dry and the leaves can fill in the rest.... it's fine to give plain water as long as the plant has enough building blocks to continue ripening process. if it is adding mass, terpenes or trichomes, then it needs building blocks - law of conservation of mass... things are not built from nothing.
all other factors the same, you can be lazier for longer at end with soil than soilless... but in extreme contexts that generalization could be wrong, too. depends on level of amendments in soil and how much you were fertilizing prior...
in soilless there's generally a lower level of nutrition and will be exhaused faster with plain water irrigations.