We do not see the reaction of the servant to this lament, suggesting that the servant is a literary device, rather than representing a real person. The Lord specifically notes that the destruction of the promising fruit was related to the decision not to destroy the wild fruit, which was the solution the servant encouraged! In other words, the servant’s actions directly led to the destruction of some of the good fruit (vv. 26–27).
It is perhaps instructive that the narrative does not comment on this obvious mistake. The servant’s suggestion was made in earnest and accepted in hope. When it fails of its goal, the master does not blame the servant.