You responded to a post saying that the effect exists (neither characterizing magnitude nor what the base rate would be without mitigation) and said you were surprised that was the case.
If you only expect mitigation, there would be no basis for surprise, of any degree, at the mere fact of the effect existing.
If it was mitigated somewhat, the effect would still exist.
The issue is the expression of surprise with the mere statement that the effect exists. I’m not confused, you said two things that don't make sense together in one post, each of which is perfectly clear.
> expressed surprise that any bias effect was left at all
Nope, if you scroll up you'll see that "somewhat" word there (you replaced it with "at all").