Why do you continue to be a proponent that small adjustments to water minerals doesn't have any effect? This theory couldn't possibly be farther from the truth being that if you ever made a beer with 150 sulfates and compare it to a beer with 200 sulfates you can definetly taste the difference!!
If you want to believe that increasing the chloride content of your mash water from 125 to 150ppm is going to make a noticeable impact on your finished beer, well knock yourself out. The differences you're tasting are either the power of suggestion, or process/malt crop/pitch rate variables that are beyond your control.
A recent HT clone I did started out with 35ppm Cl-, the finished beer had 296ppm. I added 363ppm sulfate, and ended up with 543ppm in the clone. So it is clear that increasing these ion concentrations 5-10% in the beginning has a very small impact on the final ion profile of the finished beer. I would venture to guess that level of difference is within natural variations from differences in malt crop.
Major salt additions aid in enhancing a desired flavor profile, but I am highly skeptical that the small differences some are chasing here have any impact on the beer whatsoever.
A more fruitful pursuit in my view is to nail mash/kettle/final beer pH, find the correct yeast strain that will produce a soft palate, and closely mimic the (saturation) hopping techniques. A general ionic profile philosophy is fine (i.e. 2:1 chloride/sulfate in the 100-200ppm range), but fiddling with a few dozen ppm chloride or sulfate is clearly a waste of time.