I understand your reasoning for this, but I 100% disagree.I'm starting to lean towards only slam quarters onwards should best of five
My reasoning is that Bo3 at slams favors the 'lesser' players. These unseeded/lower-ranked players can win 2/3 sets, but these same winners have a much lower chance of winning these matches if played Bo5. Isner was up 2 sets to one against Nadal in 1R RG2011. So had slams played Bo3 before QF's, Nadal would've suffered the worst slam defeat of any player ever in history considering his clay prowess, especially at RG (only 2 losses!). And I'm saying this as a Federer fan (Fed likely would've won RG2011 had Nadal been knocked out of 1R by Isner).
Keep slams Bo5 in all rounds to make it fair to everyone, win or lose; EVERYone should only win a slam match by winning 3 sets (retire/walkover exceptions).