Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oddly enough, this one seems to pass at least some testing even despite the phony documentation. This seems to be about this titan: «Boeing and Airbus both said their tests of affected materials so far had shown no signs of problems.» I read this as implying that Airbus has been buying other things from the same source and done its own tests on samples: «“Numerous tests have been performed on parts coming from the sa…
You can't really test. The tests you can do don't actually tell you what you really need to know. You can't prove the material is good, you can only trust that the material is good, and 50 years later observe how it held up. You can't find out the distribution of the alloy ingredients, or detect voids, or crystal structures, or traces of other elements, except by sawing the part in half and looking at the cut surface…
I assume that the documentation asserts something acceptable about the manufacturer testing (accelerated, destructive, what have you). In theory it could assert that the production process was such and such without any information about resulting quality assurance, but that seems improbable.
Why can't those tests be repeated (on samples, obviously)?