This sounds fine. It's a catastrophic failure test. They push until it breaks, then it broke, and they were very close to their designed target (within 1%). If they had gone 1% past their designed target, they would have been upset, as they could have made the plane lighter. They were 1% short of design limit, they are upset because they'll have to add reinforcement.
Have you seen the wing failure test? I worked for the company that did these tests (they did them before I worked there), and they still talk about how upset the engineers were that it went over spec in strength.
The test on the Boeing 787 broke the load test machine - the composite wing was so strong, they literally couldn't break it.
And let's just put this on record, so people can really shut up about this: The Airbus A380 failed at 145% maximum wing load. That's a full 3.3% below the safety margin. They did not retest, but did subsequently reenforce (just as Boeing is here). The plane was put into service by the FAA.
This post didn't "drag Airbus through the dirt," it proved that there's no issue with the testing process at hand. Airbus did nothing wrong, nor did Boeing in this instance. Both "failed" to hit the target safety margin, took remediation steps, and did not retest. This is the system working as intended.
The fact that you see this as somehow anti-Airbus is evidence of a personal bias.
Have you seen the wing failure test? I worked for the company that did these tests (they did them before I worked there), and they still talk about how upset the engineers were that it went over spec in strength.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0