Good point :-)

But I think it is more common and makes more sense too to put it the other way around:

Any sufficiently advanced stupidity/incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

It is as correct to say that sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice. The difference between these claims and Hanlon's Razor is that the razor warns against assuming the malice in the absence of evidence.

It’s plausible deniability