I'm saying that IF it is fair and custom for the table that a player may pick up the dice and initiate skill checks without even being asked to roll, as has been advocated by some, then the result will matter, be it high or low. Surely?
It depends.
There are those on this thread and others who have said essentially that EVEN if its an auto-success - if a player calls for a check then they get a fail chance, added, bam, done. Their rationale (some) was that a die roll check mandates there be uncertainty and fail chance. (That said, they were not clear if it plays the same way for impossible tasks - if the player declares "i roll" the GM will now add a 20 succeeds kinda thing. My bet not - but it's not clear if they take this " player caller for uncertainty " both ways.)
Others, myself included, have said if it was an auto-success before, its an auto-success even if you ask for check. If its an auto-fail before, it is after you call for a check.
But the use case was ambiguous and morphic-ready. It was not said that it was auto-success - just that the GM wasnt gonna call for roll? It was described as easy, which is DC 10 in DnD5e terms. So that example has the default built in wiggle room rabbit hole we by now should not find surprising.
For me tho, I also recognize that a failed ski... errr... ability check is a failure which by the basic 5e definition for resolution of ability checks can be some progress ewih setback so, the possibility of not making the other side at ground level, but catching on the other side some x feet down on the ledge is possible too. Add in some damage, a need to climb up or be helped, etc and options other than dead are on the table.
But then, I d9nt know of any player who would have jumped from that description before asking "how far. So, I too assumed it was a rabbit hole pre-wiggled parody of the perception of those who dont embrace the faith of goal and approach myself and prefer the middle path.