AE is often assumed intention or not since it's changed pretty drastically patch to patch over the past year. The variance is high enough that a perception of "intention" vs "unintended" wouldn't be rationally distinguishable unless the mechanic is completely nonsensical.
I find confirmed errors like the coring description in 1.13beta making it into 1.13 more concerning. That's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of knowing the mechanic functions differently from the tooltip and deciding (for one reason or another) that it's okay to leave an inaccurate tooltip + patch note concerning the mechanic in the official release, creating a situation whereby players anticipate being able to take land using colonial range to extend cores then can't do it.
QA said it was intended that you can't do it. If that's the case, however, why does the description still say that you can?
Then you have the switch to animist stuff or Ming x2 unrest from mandate of heaven lost that don't make it in, along with other things across earlier patches. The unfortunate result is that people experienced with the patch note history wind up using them as "preliminary information", not reliable...and much worse, that unreliability extends to the in-game interface. Even now, the peace deal screen *still* has instances where it claims you'll either spend DIP or not, with the opposite being the case, in deals a player routinely makes.
It would be nice to be able to read this list and have confidence that it is complete and accurate, but the evidence to date suggests that players should not do so and instead rely on checking the in-game files or using trial and error to learn mechanic function. To me, that's a longstanding issue more harmful than the AE seesaw.