I take the point of the linked article, but I offer this as a rebuttal:
Every time I sign a contract (in which I am effectively the "Party with less power TM") there's some sort of "maximum" clause, where if you ask the issuer they 'll say "oh this is just a formality in reality this doesn't happen".
Upon which, if you say well just remove it then, they'll reply "oh this is just a formality in reality this doesn't happen".
At which point, you'll say well just remove it then, and they'll reply "oh this is just a formality in reality this doesn't happen".
Where you then go, "uh..." and they repeat "oh this is just a formality in reality this doesn't happen".
Etc ad nauseam.
Clearly it is not just a formality, clearly it can happen, and even if it does not, that number is not exactly irrelevant and can be used for leverage. So yes, it's worth diverting attention to and calling it out when unreasonable, rather than rely on the assumption that it likely won't be used.
Every time I sign a contract (in which I am effectively the "Party with less power TM") there's some sort of "maximum" clause, where if you ask the issuer they 'll say "oh this is just a formality in reality this doesn't happen".
Upon which, if you say well just remove it then, they'll reply "oh this is just a formality in reality this doesn't happen".
At which point, you'll say well just remove it then, and they'll reply "oh this is just a formality in reality this doesn't happen".
Where you then go, "uh..." and they repeat "oh this is just a formality in reality this doesn't happen".
Etc ad nauseam.
Clearly it is not just a formality, clearly it can happen, and even if it does not, that number is not exactly irrelevant and can be used for leverage. So yes, it's worth diverting attention to and calling it out when unreasonable, rather than rely on the assumption that it likely won't be used.