“Fīhi maqāl,” “fīhi ḍaʿf,” and “laysa bi-l-qawī” are examples of relatively milder critical language. They indicate reservations about a transmitter but do not, by themselves, make an explicit charge of fabrication.
If the weakness is not severe and genuinely independent acceptable corroboration exists, such reports may be considered in supporting analyses. Nevertheless, multiple paths do not automatically elevate every weak report to ḥasan or ṣaḥīḥ.
Practical approach: assess the precise words, the cause of weakness, the narrator’s stronger and weaker routes, and whether supporting lines really are independent. A mere count of isnāds is not a substitute for judging their defects.