When your entire job is confirming that science is valid, I expect a little more humility when it turns out you've missed a critical aspect.

How did these 100 sources even get through the validation process?

> Isn't disqualifying X months of potentially great research due to a misformed, but existing reference harsh?

It will serve as a reminder not to cut any corners.

Science relies on trust.. a lot. So things which show dishonesty are penalised greatly. If we were to remove trust then peer reviewing a paper might take months of work or even years.

It's a sign of dishonesty, not a perfect one, but an indicator.