The range must: "extend from the lowest to the highest salary the employer in good faith believes at the time of the posting it would pay for the advertised job, promotion or transfer opportunity."
It's amazing how some people lazily assume they're so much cleverer than everyone else.
A good heuristic is to assume you're just plain wrong if you think you've discovered a way to weasel out of a law with only five seconds worth of thought.
When your given range and that range don't roughly coincide, they'll ask why—and then fine you for your bullshit "are you a mind reader?" response.
And then you can point out to entry level software developers and much more senior ones and demonstrate that such a wide range is not only feasible, but already exists between employees.
So unless you can read minds, it'd be hard to prove that the employer doesn't believe this is the salary range.
And besides, 10K to 1M is a pedantically large range to illustrate this dynamic. Realistically a lot of companies could provide a range from $60K to $300K for software developers - both of these are salaries I can attest to firsthand. This isn't as stark as a 100:1 range, but a range of 5:1 is still a wide enough range such that expected salaries are still effectively unknown.
I haven't read the background for this law, but I guess it's meant to help people earning less than $100k, and people with less power to negotiate an initial offer.
And on the subject of the window, most places have much narrower bands than that for a role. It might be that wide for all engineers, but not for senior engineers for example.
That's not how it works.
There is going to be an evidentiary standard (such as "preponderance of the evidence" -- it won't be "beyond a reasonable doubt") applied by an administrative law judge.
The judge can very well decide he CAN read minds -- unless YOU can read minds, or he decides to tell you, you won't know.
Even judges understand there is a difference between "entry level" and "senior."