Of course, it would be the right move if, even after trashing the Provience(s), you still have more than 50% of the possible available VP.
At the point where you have already achieved victory, nothing is "wrong" or "right" from a strategic perspective...short of throwing the game.
After the win, the rest is meaningless fluff.
---
Did any of you guys watch game four of the man versus computer match of Go between AlphaGo and Lee Sedol?
It was the only game that Lee won.
Lee found a winning line that the computer did not sufficiently explore because the pattern recognition part of the program predicted only 3 of 10,000 pro players would play that move, and it invested it's computational resources on more probable lines. Lee took a small but unassailable edge in the game. What did the computer do in response?
Well, a human would have played the strongest go they knew to try to thin the margin, or they would have resigned.
AlphaGo's prime directive is to WIN. so it would not passively play to a narrow loss. So it only played moved that were possible winning, even though the only way for them to be possibly winning was if Lee failed to play the obvious counters to each attack, that even I could have played reflexively without thinking.
AlphaGo flailed around the board until it finally resigned the trash heap mess it had made of the endgame.
Was AlphaGo wrong? No. There was no right or wrong. The game was over.
In all four of the other games, AlphaGo took a lead with strong play. The endgames looked very funny, because AlphaGo stopped playing the strongest moves, and just played the very first move it found that guaranteed a win. It played slack and weak moves that were painful to watch. In game 3, the English language commentator said something like "AlphaGo must think it is winning, because that move makes it's position worse." And it was true; it just defended a thin lead until Lee resigned.
Was AlphaGo wrong to play such weak moves? No. There was no right or wrong. The game was over.