Ring any bells?
"However, there remains no confirmation on if NASA will require Boeing to repeat the test flight. More work, according to the agency, is still required."
The last sentence reeks of political bullshit.
The test is, I believe, contractually required before Boeing is allowed to fly a manned mission. It was intended to to verify that the capsule could reach orbit, dock and then safely return to Earth. It did not reach orbit. It didn't dock. Worse, if it had astronauts aboard, one of the discovered failure modes would likely have killed them.
So in what world can Nasa even be considering letting Boeing off the hook for a full soup-to-nuts real, integrated test? (Not a simulation.)
It seems that this might be the world in which Nasa is conscious of scheming by the US Congress—completely bought, paid for, names taken and receipts printed by Boeing lobbyists—to make Boeing the sole supplier of manned orbital operations and edge out SpaceX despite the latter's considerably better and cheaper performance.
If so, it truly stinks. The Boeing approach seems to be: "We cannot compete on performance or price unless we somehow cheat. Whom can we improperly influence to look the other way while we contrive the necessary, devious compromises and kludges?"
Well, does this ring any bells?