In practice there is/are none, because would-be points of failure are continuously replaced at a schedule well ahead of the number of cycles at which they are known or expected to fail. This is true for aircraft of all sizes, not just passenger jets.
Sure, but what does this mean for the 777X? With the NG, even if you reduce the inspection interval to a few thousand cycles you're only looking spending an hour on an inspection.
How often will you have to inspect the skin (and/or whatever else failed or saw damage) on the 777X? How involved will the inspection be?
The thing I can't quite get over is that something led Dominic Gates to run with "the door blew out" as the story. Why? If a torn fuselage skin on a destructive test is so minor, why go with misdirection? Think of it in terms of MCAS. Conceptually relying on multiple AoA inputs is simple, MAX specific training is (relatively) simple. Yet the MAX is still grounded and we're seeing leaks that indicate a suitable fix is dramatically more complex than Boeing has been suggesting.
After every lightning strike, 1.5 strikes / aircraft / year on average.