That's what I've heard off-the-record from BF and from a few others in the know. The way the regs are implemented is at the discretion of the operator, and they obviously don't want to lose customers so if they can interpret "losing" as being from your betting account or as "losing" money from your bank account by virtue of top-ups then I'm confident they'll choose the soft option. And as we all know that's the realisitic view and it passes the classic 'man on the Clapham omnibus*" test.
And as I've said before, if you give them a heads up if you're going to change you betting patterns significantly then it's easier for them to find a case for you if you get by an automated check later. Planned behaviour isn't a sign of it being problematic. They want this about as much as we do so it comes down to being proactive so they don't get a bollocking if we over-step what's 'normal' for most people. Like a step up from being +/-100 to being +/-1000 which would be a massive flag, but not if you said when and why it was happening.
* The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical ordinary and reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would