Yes. Let's keep separate the Pugwash review and the concept of dealer-bribed reviews in general. As far as the Top Gun review goes, yes there is certainly an element of "if I emphasize the good and gloss over the bad then I might get more free watches in the future" and yet the review itself, IMO, is still fairly blase'. One might even say that Pug's review could have been performed without even seeing the watch in person. The actual review in summary: it's a fantasy watch and not a replica (already known), a subdial hand hadn't been reset on arrival (who cares), the date window spans yesterday today and tomorrow (already known), the crown and chrono pushers are identical to the 3717 (already known), there's a top gun logo on the back (already known), Pugwash has never seen real PVD but this looks good to him (no useful info there), the AR isn't that great (par for the course, thus already known), there is no split seconds feature only a faux pusher (already known), the hands are just like the 3717 and have crappy lume (already known), and Angus sells it for $268 (already known). Nothing glowing, nothing even terribly informative, and nothing really endorsing any particular dealer. In fact, I'd even question whether Angus got his $268 worth. So, yes, while the concept is obviously controversial, the content of the actual "review" is not in any way objectionable as I see it.
You haven't. What would become problematic is if you receiving free watches in return for fairly uninformative, uncritical reviews were to become a pattern. But perhaps the current review isn't a fair example given that the piece in this case isn't a replica of anything. And as previously stated, I'd much prefer to see a community benefit approach taken, with the watch being actioned post review, but clearly that's not what you're in it for.