Yep! One of my favorite elements to many backcountry accidents is what mountaineers call "summit fever". It's a prevalent bug in human psychology. It gets people into trouble in the wilderness all the time, and it has a close cousin in tech circles, the "sunk cost fallacy".
We were equipped for a quick afternoon hike, nothing more -- some of us I think just had t-shirts and shorts -- and some of us started to get nervous. Others really wanted to keep going to the top, especially since we knew we were close (though not how close).
We did end up turning around and heading down after just a few hundred feet of walking in the snow. I wonder about our decision from time to time -- were we smart or overly cautious? Would it have been fine or a disaster? I guess there's no easy answer -- you can't know what would have happened.
I would say, based on the information you had at the time. You made the smart play. Don't second guess based on possibly being closer than you realized, you were far enough that you couldn't see the end, that means (and most people don't realize this) that without any other information, you had even odds that you were at no more than the half way point (in terms of either time or distance). Maybe you can look back, and can say, "oh, I knew x at the time, I just forgot to take that into account, and it would have been enough to change the risk/reward equation. But any other analysis is dangerous to dwell on.
There are countless histories in the Alps and the Pyrenees of weekend hikers that go up in t-shirts and shorts, and then suddenly the weather change... One of the members of the team fall with hypothermia and an heli need to be dispatched. Taking out resources for other rescues and putting the life of the rescuers at risk.
There are discussions in some European countries if the rescued people shall pay in case of fragrant unpreparedness, because it has begun to be quite common.