Is there a passive remote called when using Replicated Storage?

So I'm trying to decide if it's more efficient to use variables in tables to store static data (probably within module scripts), or is it better to use an Instance within Replicated Storage?

I've looked up the topic and found a lot of people saying that you don't need to use a remote which reduces lag if it's stored in Replicated Storage. BUT, in order for the client to see any data manipulated by the server .. there MUST be a built-in remote within Replicated Storage, right?

Maybe I'm just missing something, but to my understanding it seems as though there is a passive remote that is fired to the client whenever Replicated Storage is changed. How else will the client see it? There must be some kind of communication somewhere between the client and server; otherwise nothing will happen. If that's true, then wouldn't it use exactly the same amount of bandwidth to store the value 50 in Replicated Storage, as it would to send that same value through a remote?

If all of this is true, wouldn't it be more efficient to use Replicated Storage as little as possible? Wouldn't using Replicated Storage just mean more memory usage on the client? If the values are created and stored on the server, then you wouldn't even have to validate the data. The only time you would need to validate is during certain requests from the client. I'd really appreciate some answers,Thank you.

TL;DR

Doesn't Replicated Storage fire a built-in remote to the Client if anything is changed in it?