Maybe . . . are you OK with the legal department assuming you are a lazy simpleton if you launch software with any bugs? Especially considering any misfeatures may have been implemented under management's direction?

I'm not sure that I see your point. Adding extra bits is more work for the legal team, and might lead to 'bugs', but a clause like this is going to lead to pissed off engineers who might leave.

To further mangle the analogy, what if I release bug free code that doesn't do what it's supposed to do?

Lawyers see a "mistake" and go for a landgrab. FB/Instagram TOS update was probably a similar dynamic. Legal likes to err on the side of over-reach, all other things equal.

But contracts itself are bound by city, state, and federal law, including civil, labor, IP, patent, etc...

Or you might get a bad lawyer or a favorable judge.

So? Contracts should be as close to your agreement as possible, and be within city/state/federal laws.

If your contract isn't accurate, it's like programming by hammering some shoddy crap together and letting the testers/users sort it out.