not at all
The problem is the financial portion someone needs to make. We are talking about over 1000 machines and the labor cost. Yes in a perfect world, changing the $20 part + labor cost will be the best solution. Trust me, I am all for it. But in the world of financial and government, I have to provide justifications. I can't just say blantly it's safety and NEC. Someone will come back to me show me why and where
That was in the back of my mind but it was a long shot.
Regardless of what code requires, when (not if) someone gets injured by one of the 1,000 machines, the attorneys will argue that you knew or should have known it is a danger because code requires it. All of us can argue this forever and everyone raises valid points. But it doesn't matter what we say in the end. It only matters what a jury believes. And by the way, insurance companies usually offer up a quick $50k to make a claim go away because it will cost that to fight it and they still run the risk of having to make a big payout.
I'd think you could craft a well written letter to someone in risk management saying you've researched the matter and it appears to be ambiguous. Attorneys don't like that word. It means whoever makes the best argument wins. And if you're the one trying to say that injured kid is not your fault, others may side with the grieving family and not you.
If someone owns 1,000+ vending machines, hopefully they have $20k to invest in protecting their customers. It just seems like the logical thing to do, all things being considered.