What worries me more than the evidence for water-damaged components is what seems to be a substantial amount of hair on that 'refurbished' board. It did not not

What worries me more than the evidence for water-damaged components is what seems to be a substantial amount of hair on that 'refurbished' board. It did not notice any hair on the 'factory-stock' board, so I assume that the source of the hair is not this repair shop. If this is the (lack of) quality of work Apple refurbishments get, Apple has some serious issues wrt. quality control. The other option is that this device was in fact repaired by a third party which used the proper adhesive procedure (which seems to be to apply more than one layer of adhesive).