I find it feels all wrong to me to apologize for something that I'm still not clear I did -- whether on someone else's assertion that it was somehow wrong and I shouldn't have done it, or "preemptively" before anyone even objects. I prefer to start by asking what happened, and there are many possible answers:

-- That I allegedly said something that, in fact, someone else said.

-- That I must have meant something I didn't in fact mean. If I discovered I really hadn't made myself clear enough, I might very well want to apologize for that.

-- That the other person reacted in some way I wouldn't have expected them to. In that case I'd want to know more about how it had affected them and what I could do differently next time, along with apologizing for not having known it this time.

-- That the other person had standards different from mine with regard to what was and wasn't appropriate to say. Depending on what else they were willing to tell me, I might conceivably go so far as to reconsider my standards (and apologize accordingly). More likely, I'd want us to agree to disagree and if I apologized at all it would be only for refusing to give in to their view.

-- That the other person was acting in bad faith, playing "gotcha!" or something. In that case I think I'd apologize only for any errors of fact, then steer clear of that person.

I'm already pretty careful to get my facts straight (or to use appropriate weasel words when I'm not sure ). If I were being taken to task for an error of fact, before apologizing I'd want to see both where I'd gotten my version of the facts and where my questioner had gotten theirs.

That sounds to me like a promising way to address "what happened". For the record, I don't seem to resent any point of view that someone openly presents as their point of view but I do, usually unapologetically, if they assume that they're right and that I do or must or should agree with them.