Not a lawyer but a lawyer once attempted to explain this common legalese pattern to me. Here’s my terrible attempt:

It’s not like a programming type system where C widens the type to make A and B meaningless. It’s that A and B are communicating intent. “It’s meant for these things… and maybe something else we don’t yet know.” Apparently this is important if you ever had to fight over it.

Yeah it basically codifies “spirit” vs letter. Too far outside a reasonable mandate and it can still get challenged.

Sort of like the "show and tell" technique in prompt engineering.