"Conclusively" is probably a little strong. You're relying not just on the type, but also the name - the type alone isn't enough here, even without resorting to bottom, and even when requiring every piece be meaningfully used. For instance, with the same type we can write:

    doubleIf :: Applicative m => (a -> m Bool) -> [a] -> m [a]
    doubleIf f values = case values of
        [] -> pure []
        x:xs -> prepend x <$> f x <*> doubleIf f xs
      where
        prepend :: a -> Bool -> [a] -> [a]
        prepend x True xs = x:x:xs
        prepend x False xs = x:xs