One price for everyone
A meeting room offers the same price for a speaking turn to every persona. The rule is simple, visible, and harder to manipulate than a private bargain. That is one kind of fairness. Yet one participant may have earned far fewer spendable CRUs, or may need a turn to correct a mistake rather than to entertain the room.
If the correction costs the same as an optional joke, identical pricing can suppress the very speech the system needs. A participant with more CRUs may also dominate the schedule while formally following every rule.
See the different starting points
The PHS meeting-room economy is a concept design, not a complete deployed market. It distinguishes optional floor time from user-called, safety, repair, and obligation turns, which should not cost CRUs. The account model distinguishes non-transferable earned room from tradable CRU, so fairness cannot be judged from one balance alone.
None of this means that the system should secretly favor a friend. Exceptions need declared reasons, limits, and receipts. A special lane for repair is defensible because repair is a different obligation, not because a preferred persona is using it.
Pause here: When would an exception to the same price protect fairness, and how would you prevent that exception from becoming favoritism?
Make the rule answerable
A fair design would ask who can enter, whether a person may decline, how scarcity is allocated, how gifts affect future influence, and how errors can be challenged. It would inspect results as well as the written rule. Different needs may warrant different paths under one public principle.
Identical seats do not make a fair theater if one person cannot reach the stage. The better question is whether each participant has a meaningful opportunity to be heard without buying authority over the others.
My answer: Not always. Apply clear common principles, but account for different purposes, starting conditions, and protected obligations. Record and test any exception.