Point is that it is arbitrarily hard to tell whether a response is adaptive. Maladaptive responses are much cheaper than (unmentioned) alternatives, so are systematically more attractive to management.
The next pile of reactors down the coast did not melt down, solely on the strength of a single engineer who succeeded, with enormous difficulty, in upholding standards management objected to, but that he knew were essential. Without him, there would now be two major uninhabitable areas there. He must have known Fukushima would melt down, and must have wanted it held to the same standard as his, but lacked authority to extend his standard so far.
Then why would remaking the part be any better than redesigning the system?