Absolutely correct.

But this is not because we are overstaffed in 787 FO in "all the bases" and they want to have exactly 5 FOs of attrition in a bunch of bases (oddly the exact same number). Just last month they allowed a bunch of backfills into 787 FO in 3 different bases. One base would have had backfills because the min and max were the same, but no one left. The only base significantly overstaffed was EWR but a ton of FOs bid out. This month they backed off those numbers to restrict training. If they had too many 787 FOs they would have cancelled the awards they literally just gave a few weeks ago in the vacancy bid, which they can do under the contract. They didn't because we aren't overstaffed on the 787. This was about preventing backfills. This has become a running joke on the internal forums and FB groups where people complain because they find out they are over 100% in base, but its not a real number. Its because the number drives the vacancy bidding engine which awards vacancies. Its not programmed for the 8-C-4-a secondary vacancies, which they have to do manually. This is why those only show up on the final Award with an * next to them because they don't generate additional backfills.

For those that aren't aware what 8-C-4-a secondaries are, those are additional awards when they need to fill training slots, and a person who is already qualified on a plane (for example going from SFO to LAX 787 FO) is already qualified in the seat and they still want to push another pilot through training to fill capacity of training. These are not contractually guaranteed and the company can manually add another pilot or more for each pilot that does not require training.

MIN/MAX is literally only a training slot management tool. If they are overstaffed in a category they will put this in the crew resources update so everyone is aware.