EEPROM.write() endurance trade-off for high-frequency data logging on Arduino AVR

On AVR-based Arduino boards, the EEPROM library provides EEPROM.write() for persisting individual bytes across resets. The underlying EEPROM cells have a finite write/erase endurance, typically specified around 100,000 cycles per byte, and reading an address does not consume that budget. For sketches that update the same address frequently—such as logging a counter or sensor value every second—the unconditional write behavior of EEPROM.write() raises a practical design boundary: without wear-leveling or a conditional update pattern, the byte may reach its endurance limit far sooner than the project's intended lifetime.

The uncertainty is where to draw the line between simplicity and endurance management. If the stored value rarely changes, skipping redundant writes is straightforward, but when the value changes on nearly every loop, the application must either accept the eventual cell failure, rotate across multiple addresses, or buffer writes in RAM before committing. Each approach changes both the code structure and the recovery behavior after an unexpected power loss.

What is the recommended configuration boundary for using EEPROM.write() on an ATmega328P when the target address is updated at a fixed interval? Should the design assume EEPROM.update() is sufficient to avoid unnecessary erase cycles, or is explicit wear-leveling required once the write frequency exceeds a certain threshold? How does the out-of-bounds read behavior for addresses beyond EEPROM.length() affect safe address rotation schemes?