Reminds one, somewhat, of
UA232.
Except in that case, UA had a known-high-time piece of hardware, with a known vulnerability, and they placed in back into service with only a cursory inspection.
The present case is a newly-made piece, fresh from the vendor, passed with only cursory inspection.
The open question: How is this event different from QF74 31 Aug, or from the Trent 1000 testbench failure?