Cells generally function in this way: DNA -> RNA -> protein
Replication is: DNA -> DNA
If a #mutation happens in replication (DNA -> DNA#) then the next generation of cells will have (DNA# -> RNA# -> protein#)
A mistake in transcription (DNA -> RNA# -> protein#) wouldn't affect the germline.
The question now is: does it benefit cells to have a decent rate of errors in transcription so that if perchance a real mutation happens, the system has already been tested for possible adverse effects? In effect, the cell is resilient to possible new mutations because it has already seen them in a subset of protein# that came from RNA#.
If you mean that it is better to have a fault-tolerant system where potential errors are masked, this advantage exists in spite of a decent rate of error in transcription, not because of it. That is because errors in the germline are fundamentally different from errors in transcription - they are constitutive, present in every cell, and the cell cannot escape them merely by discarding the transcript.
Now, presumably mutations that would be horrific germline mutations (a nonsense POLE mutation, let's say) happen all the time in some transcripts in some cells. So what? In what way has the "system" (the organism) been tested for the effect of this mutation at the germline by one shitty transcript in one cell, which was immediately discarded in favor of another, working transcript?