1) You dismissed the damage assessment stating the building damage was not consistent with explosive ordnance with the statement, ". . . incorrect assumption that the Ukraine side has only one type of HIMARS ordinance".
2) You proposed that Ukraine targeted the building thinking it had Russian weaponry or soldiers.
The implication seems to be that Ukraine used an alleged non-explosive warhead on the mistaken target.
There are two problems with this.
1) It doesn't make any sense to hit such a target with the presumed non-explosive warhead.
2) There are no non-explosive HIMARS warheads.