Speaking as an A&P,although not currently practicing, the key term here is "inspection." My bet is there is another key word here, "Audit." The Feds regularly "audit" maintenance records and check the write-ups and compliance with AD's and service bulletins and general inspection guidelines. There may be an inspection procedure on the nose gear where someone was taking a short cut rather than an extensive disassembly or other complex procedure that may have been in the manufacturers guidelines. Company maintenance management may have decided on a cheaper quicker procedure.
The FAA raises the red flag in the audit and the company knows that the way the FED's dole out penalty's is generally by a fixed rate per aircraft per flight. Something like a $1000 dollar fine is per occurrence. So the way to keep the fine smaller is immediately ground the fleet. No more flights, at least the problem will not get worse. The company may ultimately prevail but arguing with the FED's is almost always done with uncertain outcome. I remember a maintenance manager telling me that if you go to court against the FED's you have a greater chance of losing. Unless you are totally strong on your position, with supporting authority, like from the manufacturer, you will likely loose. You are being evaluated with regulatory comliance not weather your course of action is the best. In Administrative law, the Judge will generally yield to the governments case because Congress gave the FAA oversight, not because the are smarter or more correct.
US Air got a big fine in the 1990's over a cabin door inspection that required door removal on the DC-9. The company did a door in place inspection instead and paid millions for the error years later.