but I think he has a valid point directed at the quality control of reasonably important documents.
Alright, I'll bite:
How would you describe "acceptable quality control" for sets of measured data?
I would suggest that it would be something like "correct to within the accuracy tolerances demanded by the purpose"
Seem reasonable?
OK, now, if you were preparing to fly a localizer approach to 18 and you noted the highest obstacle between the FAF and the runway showed a charted elevation of 921' How would you fly that approach differently than if that same obstacle had shown an elevation of 915' ?
If your answer is "exactly the same" then perhaps the quality control is within the standard I suggested?