No, it means you think s/// or \G is broken, not pos(). But s/// and \G aren't broken.
Are you sure you know what I think? :^) I didn't say anything about "broken". I just say, that the function does not work as documented and propose to change the documentation to avoid the long arguments like this.
One more time. The perldoc -f pos states 'so assigning to "pos" will change that offset, and so will also influence the "\G" zero-width assertion in regular expressions'. In reality, when pos is used during matching it does not influence the "\G". Which means that the documentation is incorrect. If you believe, that pos does influence the \G during matching, then please provide a proof. If you just don't like the words that I've used to state this, then I don't think it makes sense to argue :)