Recall that $M\subseteq\omega$ is maximal if it is c.e., and can be only trivially extended by other c.e. sets, i.e. if $M\subseteq N$ and $N$ is c.e., then either $\overline{N}$ or $N\setminus M$ is finite. Similarly say a set $M$ is $A$-maximal if it is $A$-c.e. and only trivially extended by other $A$-c.e. sets.
I am interested in sets $A$ such that all $A$-maximal sets are $\Delta^0_2$. If $A$ has this property, then relativizing Yates' construction of a complete maximal set gives an $A$-maximal $M$ with $M\oplus A\equiv_T A'$, so that $A$ is $\mathrm{GL}_1$.
Thus among $A\in\Delta^0_2$, the sets with this property are exactly the low ones - one direction is above, and for the reverse, if $A$ is low then all $A$-c.e. sets are $\Delta^0_2$.
My question is - is this property enjoyed by any non-$\Delta^0_2$ set?
By Martin's high domination theorem, this condition is equivalent to asking for a set $A$ such that all $A$-high, $A$-c.e. sets are $\Delta^0_2$ and high, i.e. if $B\in\Sigma^0_1(A)$ and $(B\oplus A)'\equiv_T A''$, then $B\in\Delta^0_2$ and $B'\equiv_T \emptyset''$. Edit: My understanding of the relativization of Martin's result was incorrect (thanks to Emma Harper on Twitter for spotting this!). The correct statement is that if a set $B$ is $A$-c.e. and $A$-high, there is an $A$-maximal $M$ with $M\oplus A\equiv_T B\oplus A$, so what I struck through is not obviously equivalent to the property I am concerned with. Indeed, it does not hold outside of the $\Delta^0_2$ degrees, as Noah correctly points out below.
My suspicion is that this requirement is too strong, that if $A\not\in\Delta^0_2$ some $A$-maximal real will always fail to be in $\Delta^0_2$. But I do not have a proof, nor can I rule out that some 'weak' set (like a hyperimmune-free or a bi-immune-free) might somehow have this property.