It's a serious question for someone defending these numbers. If we need 200000+ just to keep pace with population growth and we gain less than that I don't get the math.
Not to mention that a drop of 0.3% is a total newly employed of 465 thousand! the math just doesn't add up.
To try to answer your question in the OP, the BLS was revising the number because it said that the number of employed was erroneously low las moth by about 81K. That added to the 114k is roughly 200k and keeps pace. Of course it doesn't explain the drop in UE, not even by half.