Saving Spooner instead of the girl=against the lore?! Also, Cinema Sins

Sooo Cinema Sins did a sin video** on this movie and really sucked at it. lots of critics in the comments, a lot of them over not getting stuff like "why Spooner was saved and not the girl" since it was explained in the movie: in this case the survival odds were around 11% vs 45% between him and the girl. Some people however, say that movie part went against the lore of the book, claiming the robot should have followed the order to save the girl first (law 2*), and sacrifice itself if needed (law 3*) to try and save both (law 1*).

After going back and forth a lot with a few ppl on Asimov's laws, AI logic, ethics and movie lore, this is what it came down to for me:

There's a difference between saving everyone at once, one at a time, or being ordered to save someone. The first two are still "trying to save everyone", just one in a more effective manner with a higher chance of success.
The fact the survival odds were mentioned means it was used in making the decision. Extrapolate the same scenario to one with more than just 2 people in distress, and the logic becomes clearer:

Imagine a single robot encountering a burning building full of people in danger. It can still die trying to save the ones with 1% survival odds, but it has to make sure not more lives are lost because of it. If one human could override that whole process by an order invoking law 2, it could be catastrophically harmful to law 1. So it will be ignored.

This is how I feel the decision was made to save Spooner first and ignore his order. How is that reasoning against the lore?

*Asimov's 3 laws of robotics:

1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2.A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.