That's the gist of what you're arguing if you dissect it. My statement was that it would be ironic, in case any of the riders that were to end up in front of him in GC, would only have been able to because of the boni seconds they were able to take in the stages where he did the leadout for his teammate. I think that's a perfectly fine example of irony. Like sharpening the knife you end up getting stabbed with yourself or loading the gun you eventually get shot with.
Both Bilbao as Martinez got 10 seconds, Vlasov 4, in the stages where Evenepoel did the leadout, so i was talking about a scenario where Vlasov beats him by less than 4 seconds in GC, or Bilbao and Martinez by less than 10. You then claimed that those riders taking those bonis, was 'sure' not because he did the leadout. While it is possible they would otherwise also have been able to snatch some (perhaps the same amount of) boni seconds, i think that is quite likely that the sprint would have unfolded differently and they might very well not have snatched the same amount of boni seconds, if any. Maybe Evenepoel could have attacked in the final 800 meters himself and snatched some bonis, a possibility he now forfeited. Maybe a chaotic sprint would have favored a different rider, maybe the chase would stall without anybody closing the final gap and Lafay takes it anyway, or maybe another rider attacks. Insisting that the leadout had nothing to do with them getting boni seconds, is the same as stating the leadout (or lack of) would not have changed the outcome. Then why should teams even bother doing a leadout, if your assumption were to be correct?
So, to answer your deleted question, yes, logic is my friend.