For colors of a plane against a clear blue sky, the edit is wonderful. But, look at what happened to all the artifacts in the sky. I wouldn't yet mark this one up as a 'success'. And the ghosting around the wing-tips and tail. Software really can't make up for a failed capture. Didn't you shoot in a burst? Although this might be the perfect viewing angle of the pass, wasn't there a better original version of all the possible versions?

Regarding magnification, at best, your viewing audience, or the physical print, will never be more than 1:1, aka 100% zoom. Looking at pixels beyond the 1-pixel to 1-pixel view on your monitor, is relevant only when trying to PhotoShop edit at the pixel-level; something that can be done, but rarely should or needs to be done.

So, if you wanted to spend still more time and more effort on an image that seems like a 1-second <delete> decision during culling, you've got more work to complete on the details across the entire frame.

I've sold multiple times to KEH in person and purchased numerous items, including multiple items immediately diagnosed as broken when tested.

They do not "test". They = KEH.

That's the job of the next customer. There's a 2-week no questions asked return policy, with pre-paid return shipping.

Similar to the questions earlier to another community member assuming something more, how could anyone "test" all the various models, brands, formats of film and digital cameras and lenses? How could any for-profit organization operate any level of "testing" of the variety and scale KEH handles and resells? Even charging batteries to simply turn on every digital camera is not cost-effective.

If the next customer (aka non payroll KEH testing staff) eventually finds a problem, there's a 25% restocking charge for failing their assigned tasks within the expected time-limit.

The majority of my equipment is from KEH. I believe in them. I don't believe in urban myths.

Everyone has opinions. Some, may even have 1st hand direct knowledge.
Three people in this thread provide just about everything there is to know.
Bill tells us all we need to really know...99.99999% of the items returned likely have absolutely nothing wrong with them. Buyers remorse, dealer returns,......And, a process is in place to 'check' these items and send those that need more attention to the in-house NikonUSA techs. We don't need to care or know how much anyone gets paid and exactly what happens. All that matters is that the purchasers of refurb products from Nikon are happy. This does not mean that there is 100% satisfaction, but enough to warrant their program and process. And when there is a problem..Nikon takes care of the customer 1st and foremost. Should be case closed.
Scott, properly provides the view that no GOOD manufacturer would implement a re-furb program that would damage their reputation. And therefore, returns must go through a process that ultimately results in a successful result.
Now Paul, on the other hand, takes the contrary view. Why would any rational business actually 'test..spend the resources... for something to be like new and sell it at less than retail? (paraphrased). And, further challenges Scott and belittles Scott for is lack of acumen in making his statements. Paul's example 'proves' his claim and that one only needs to run the numbers to see that 'thorough testing' is not possible. And further that Scott's own professional experience does not matter one bit. Nice and constructive.
Back to Bill for the final word '.....Returned items are looked at to make sure they work. End of story. They are not put through any testing by techs..'
This implies, without any stretch of one's imagination, that there is a process in place with people properly trained to determine if items 'work'. And those that don't, or (in accordance with Paul's checklist), are sent through to another team. This does not mean that items that work are put through rigorous testing..it only means, that at a minimum, THERE IS A PROCEDURE IN PLACE TO DO SOMETHING....and clearly this process works for NikonUSA and it's customers.
So, why would any rational company..........? Well, the program seems to be successful. And, products sold at a lower cost than new..with shorter warranties. And, the company has added a program that they deem necessary for the brand and customers. I would guess, with my small brain, that NikonUSA has evaluated the costs and benefits of this program and deemed it worthwhile.
Scott, I am onboard with your concept for this successful program. Paul, what is the point of belittling someone's opinions and experience in order to bolster your view--opinion--not fact? Bill, thanks for your in-house Nikon take of a program that works.

One would think with your quoted resume, you'd have a better understanding of the details / unknowns of the discussion. Is any of that onsite manufacturing experience post 2000? In fully automated assembly plants? High-tech like computers, cameras, similar? Regarding relevant experience, did you read the other specific replies to your assumed refurb operations? Did you mentally run a spreadsheet of the costs for the equipment and people needed for your assumed thorough testing of Nikon's roster of current models to be refurbished?