I am glad that you agree that their legal department’s explicit and intentional exclusion of known successful non-mercenary attacks is precise and legally sound.

It is advisable to not grasp at straws to think up ways that highly paid lawyers are not saying exactly the words they have approved. That is literally their job and they are good at it.

If they meant something more expansive they can do so. It is not the public’s job to do it for them while letting them retreat to the legally binding interpretation at their pleasure.