I dunno, this was less about pressure of work and more about different interpretations on how to carry out a particular test. Does go to show how complicated the wheel/rail interface is.
But that is exactly why the much quoted 053 inspection was instituted in the first place. As I have always feared, and have been on the receiving end of, sometimes you can have too many standards that are too complex for the average person to take in and remember.
Throws in elements of "damned if you do and damned if you don't". You need the standards in order to define the norm and the limits, and the standards go hand in hand with best practice. However, the standards need to be initially defined, and regularly reviewed to ensure that they are still "fit for purpose".
However, this all takes time and resources, which some people see as wasteful - why do you have all these people in the office re-writing how to do something instead of being out on the ballast doing it?
Unfortunately, you then let yourself be open to incidents of people following their interpretation of the standards, because the best practice didn't pick up the problem - in this case it appears to be the way to use a gauge that had some issues in the way that it was to be used.