You're definitely correct in your thinking in that they do vest immediately on a change of control event as per the clause, and I won't disagree with you that it could certainly be perceived that the hypothetical director in question could be swayed a certain way based off how these performance rights are granted. But from a directors perspective, It's usually seen as a defensive mechanism to protect their performance rights if an unforeseen TO comes in from a hostile or ill-intentioned bidder prior to them being able to vest naturally via the other clauses.
Definitely two ways of looking at it
Edit; Reply button didn't work, this was for you @SomeCents
