The question that I don't think is answered outside of Airbus is how deep they went in to " repair" the Puma gearbox after it fell of the truck. The mfg. said it was repaired properly and that makes it legal. It might have been good as new or it might have been the initiation for the failure because something was missed on a bearing race. The assumption has to be that they knew exactly what happened and did what needed to be done and that the failure was unrelated because nothing could ever be proved linked to sliding off a truck bed.
As long as there is a population of people certified to perform overhaul and repair by manufacturere and airworthiness authorities, there will be people willing to take chances on components as pointed out above, without being sure of the history. There will always be complicit people who send components out to these shops without adequate description of what the real status of the part is. The question is, is it wrong to perform an overhaul, per the manufacturers specs, on a component that appears de-novo on your doorstep with a request for overhaul, without being able to be absolutely sure about the circumstances that brought it to you? Having been a chief inspector at an MRO and seen parts from a known wreck appear for overhaul, my answer is absolutely not. Safety issues notwithstanding, for no other reason because you cannot know how the legal system will treat you if there is an issue down the road. I'm retired now and feel very fortunate to never have been associated with an aaccident that caused an injury or worse. The manufacture and the airworthiness authorities always tell you the MINIMUM that you MUST do. Hardly ever do they write down what you SHOULD do to look after everyone's best interests. That list is left to the conscience of the MRO. It costs a lot of money to fly around. Too bad, it's just the cost of doing business.