The inspector didn’t inspect anything. That’s a massive failure on their part. How else can you reasonably assess the work of someone titled “inspector” when

The inspector didn’t inspect anything. That’s a massive failure on their part. How else can you reasonably assess the work of someone titled “inspector” when they fail to “inspect”? Especially when they approve a device they haven’t “inspected” as an “inspector”. If you see logic in calling them something other than a massive failure then I’d like to understand your thought process.