Wouldn't it be more clear to say that for hiring approach, now the unexpected burden of tagging on a new 100k fee works as a negative coloring (as it I think intends (ostensibly)) to these candidates then? How was the 100k already priced in?
It's obvious that they're making a point that there is never going to be an ideal realized... and so to speak otherwise is playing a part, and naturally would be called out.
I don't want to be manslaughtered by this person on my morning commute, simple. When the courts and insurance companies shift, we will make your side on these things moot.