Originally Posted by narvik

This appears to be the emotional response the NYT article was seeking.
My analogy was purely a response to the poor journalism, not the subject.

Responsible journalism wouldn't rely on anecdotal reports of "debris" left behind on new planes, but would investigate how such incidents at
Boeing's 787 N. Charleston plant compare to Boeing's other planes, other plants, and other manufacturers (such as Airbus, Bombardier, Comac, UAC, Embraer, etc...)

The purpose of the final inspection is to find faults in manufacture and/or improper cleaning of the final product.
In the cited paragraph, the inspector found and removed the left-over items.