Thanks for reading and for the response, Lando!

Yes, agree with both your points. The aggressor in GTO land should be making his opponent indifferent between calling and folding (or his opponents collectively indifferent in a multiway pot), so shouldn't be 'crushing their range'. I was thinking in the exploitative case, where the aggressor under bluffed or showed his or her hand face up!

I have seen a theoretical example (on the topic of 'leverage') with 2 streets to go where the aggressor needed to find bluffs on the turn that would be folded on the river and others that would be bluffed again, and there were just not enough bluffs available. So GTO was for aggressor to bet 100% of range, and defender to fold 100% of range.

Cheers