I don't think so. They have the right to prevent cascading events by creating a a legitimate (i.e. correct) award where they control the total number of pilots that go into a category, or displace. Fine. That doesn't give them the right to avoid solving errors, just because the resolution of errors would cause a cascade. These are two vastly different concepts.
...

Let's play with an example.

Four pilots, in seniority order, A,B,C,D. All are very senior F/O's. The bid only offers two positions: a WB Captain position, and a NB Captain position.
-A, B, D bid WB Captain first, then NB Captain.
-C bids the senior NB Captain position only.
-A & B put several restrictions, all of which are met in the awards.
-D puts no restrictions.

First scenario: the company decides to offer an extra seat in the WB category, because it would suit their purposes, for whatever reason, and not award the position in the NB category.
-A & B are WB Captains.
-C gets nothing.

The company manipulated the total number of people in both categories, but seniority is respected. End of story.

Second scenario: the Company doesn't deviate from the planned number, and awards what was posted: one WB Captain., one NB Captain. Except it makes a mistake: itfails to recognize that A & B's restrictions for WB Captain are met, and only awards D WB Captain, and C NB Captain.
-A complaints.
-B doesn't catch on, and fails to complaint.
-Company moves A to WB Captain category, keeps D there, and carries the overage of 1.

As you can see, failing to complaint means that B gets neither his first, nor his second choice. So, one type of manipulation (changing the total people in a category without discrimination) can affect pilots in general, but correcting errors selectively can affect individual pilots, out of seniority.

My argument: You can't solve A's problem, and ignore B.