It's called "strawman fallacy", you
replacing the thesis and add things that wasn't there to draw plausible conclusions instead of trying to get more information if there's not enough. Calling it "hypothesis" isn't charging anything.
If anything, you should argue that it’s overgeneralization, over-extrapolation, or an argument from authority. Hell, if you involved the concept of non sequitur, it would be better.
It’s like you’re cobbling together words related to scientific rigor without understanding the concepts. A hypothesis is, by definition, based on incomplete data. If it wasn’t, it would just be called an observation. So you make a hypothesis, see how it fits the data, and maybe even see how well it predicts the future.
You literally imagine something that isn't in this text and start theroritizing based on this.