It says absolutely nothing. You've inferred something from it, and then run with it to create your own narrative.
Evaluate a candidate based on their experience and qualifications, everything else is just to satisfy our own egos.
That's as much survivorship bias as it is to hire someone based on their attention to details.
Well, as I said I typically hire in design and product, so "proven ability to produce high-quality written content" is often an important qualification.
One reason that recruiters want to tinker with your resume is to remove contact information, so they can ensure that the company can't reach you without going through them.
I was livid when this happened to me, especially after I made clear that I did not want the recruiter to send any documents on my behalf.
I wouldn't use this as the only basis to pass on a candidate, but it'd certainly be a red flag[1]. If you can't take the time to even run spellcheck on your CV - a document you have specifically crafted for presumably serious people to read - what does that say about your attention to detail at work?
There's room for leniency, obviously, because even professional proofreaders miss stuff and not everyone is writing in their native language, but some baseline level of competence is expected.
1. I'm usually hiring people in design and product, not engineering, so ymmv.