Why are the wordings of khulʿ not measured against the explicit wordings of ṭalāq in not considering intention, and why is the wording "I ransomed her" not considered an explicit divorce or khulʿ?

According to the Shafi'is and Hanbalis, the expressions of khul' are divided into explicit (sarih) and allusive (kinayah). An explicit expression takes effect without intention if it is accompanied by compensation. An allusive expression also takes effect if it is accompanied by an indication of the situation, such as a request for khul'; otherwise, intention is necessary. The explicit expressions of khul' are: "I have divorced you for compensation (khala'tuki)," "I have redeemed you (fadaytuki)," and "I have annulled your marriage (fasakhtu nikahaki)." Other expressions, such as "I have cleared you (bara'tuki)," "I have absolved you (abra'tuki)," and "I have separated from you (abantuki)," are allusive. If khul' occurs with an explicit expression but without compensation, it is considered an allusive divorce (kinayah talaq) that does not take effect except with intention. This is the view of the majority of Shafi'is, Hanbalis, and Hanafis. As for the Malikis, they consider the expressions of khul', fidyah (redemption), ibra' (absolution), and sulh (reconciliation) to be an irrevocable divorce (talaq ba'in), even without compensation.