The engineering trick with carbon brakes seems to be to quickly get them warm, but not to cook them.
When they are warm (and that is below 500 oC), a smooth friction film is formed on the brakes which serves as a solid self-lubricant. This film protects the brakes, therefore the brakes wear less. The formation mechanism of the film is the subject of scientific debates, but it's known that it does not form at low energy braking, and it is destroyed at extremely high energy braking.
As temperature (and braking energy) rise very high (like in a rejected take-off), the silicon friction film breaks into chunks due to shear stresses and exposes the ceramic-carbon mix to higher friction and so the wear rate increases. As the carbon heats over 500 oC, it starts to oxidise. If the temperature of the total brake system exceeds 1000 oC, the thermal gradient is too steep, the ceramic can't offer enough protection, the carbon fibres get hotter, and the oxidation of the carbon fibres leads to a very rapid degradation of the brakes.
Using Autobrake 3 as a standard makes sense in the context of the engineering (gets them warm but not overheated). And in Indonesia using autobrake max in the wet would be understandable in the context that there are a wide range of runways, and the length and/or engineering elements giving good wet weather braking can be variable. I am not a pilot, so my comments are made in the engineering sense only and there might well be operational considerations as well.