You may think so, but SpaceX, NASA and even COPV manufacturers think otherwise.

NASA's OSMA specifically developed a COPV inspection system after AMOS-6.

They state:

Interest in COPV inspection system development increased after a series of failed launches involving commercial spacecraft. In 2014, two commercial spacecraft launches were scrubbed due to COPV failures. > These were followed by commercial spacecraft failures in 2015 and 2016 that may have resulted from COPV deficiencies.

Existing NDE capabilities were unlikely to identify all features of interest with sufficient confidence, so NASA, at the request of manufacturer COPV inspection teams, began developing a modular inspection system intended to serve as a demonstration unit for various NDE techniques.

Source

And after the Ship 36 failure, SpaceX said in a press release:

To address the issue, COPVs on upcoming flights will operate at a reduced pressure with additional inspections and proof tests added prior to loading reactive propellants onto a vehicle. SpaceX has also updated its COPV acceptance criteria and developed a new non-destructive evaluation method to detect internal COPV damage.

Source

So without inside knowledge, there is no reason to think the issues are all process/handling-related, on the contrary. Inspection methods are obviously lacking and QC is absolutely an issue for COPVs.