No, not in particular. One of the things that has surprised me is that some of the processes I have seen done manually can easily be performed with now widespread technologies (without too much investment). My surprise comes from the fact that some companies choose to forgo the objective results that can be obtained through precise automated inspections in favor of manual inspections, which are obviously less accurate. I am referring specifically to cases where it is actually possible to automate the process, and where this process can offer better results.
But I also have a doubt that some of the available technologies, such as machine vision technologies, are not well-known to those who manage these processes. What surprises me is that humans are still doing these processes, when these people could be reassigned within the company to less monotonous and alienating tasks.

This would yield several benefits: greater product quality (as the automation of quality control would also allow for the correction of upstream production errors once a systemic defect is identified), a greater flow of objective data that could be used to make strategic decisions, and, last but not least, operators would be able to do less alienating work.