Friend, we have no idea that this rifle would "need to have the trigger worked over once the rifle has left the factory"
The only thing that we have to go by is that assumedly the owner wanted a lighter trigger. Considering that the owner did not bother to try the new trigger pull on snap caps or even to function-check the rifle prior to loading it, it does not inspire me a great deal of confidence in his judgment as what that rifle needed or did not need...............................
Double rifles - especially! due to the regulation process - are shot at the factory. We have zero reason to believe that this rifle had inappropriate trigger pull. This would have been detected during regulation. A bolt rifle may (?) conceivably miss the firing test for proofing, but a double simply cannot get out of the factory without being fired repeatedly, and I will trust the judgement of any regulator from any double rifle maker over that of this owner, as to whether these triggers were properly adjusted or not...
I also absolutely disagree that "it still remains a bit the responsibility of VC for evoking a need to ‘better’ it’s operation". Countless rifles, engines, whatever, you name it, are destroyed daily by John-Doe-Public-who-knows-better... In this case, my money is on the owner wrongly wanting a match grade bolt action trigger pull on a double, which a good double should not have. Its triggers should have pulls similar to a shotgun triggers, not a tuned-up bolt action rifle, due to the dynamics of instinctive shooting.
100%.
This is not so much about Jewell, or Timney, or Geissele, etc. triggers., they are all great FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE.
The error here is to want a benchrest or match rifle trigger on a hunting rifle, which is already questionable for a bolt action that may see excited use or snap shooting, and which is especially wrong for a double rifle which is mostly designed for defensive instinctive shooting.