I have heard this quite often, and situation usually goes as follows:

Coach/Player identifies a decision point, that apparantly requires analyzing.

He's wondering if the opposing player is ever bluffing, or bluffing often enough.

Then he goes with the reasoning, "I can't fold we are in the top of our range."

What I don't understand about this is, I think I know where it is coming from, If we fold the top of our range it affects our frequencies in a way that makes us vulnerable to being exploited, in other words we fold too much in that spot so he can bet his entire range and make a profit. What I do not understand that if you first have identified that it is actually a decision, it doesn't matter whether we are folding the best hand in our range or a hand that falls into the top 49% of our range in that spot (depending on sizing obv), if our frequency reaching that exploitable point is what matters to us.

So my question is, if a good player identifies this spot as a real decision, and he is at the top of his range, there must be something wrong with previous streets because we need a lot more hands to call down if we worry about our frequency going too high up right? So in other words, conclusion jumping from well we are in the top of our range isn't a good excuse to click call, because it's probably the case that the way we set up our range arriving to the spot is wrong?