To me, a single significant error of any kind brings the entire paper into question. If a less important figure contains an image duplication, that makes me wonder if I can trust any of the images.
In any case, my point was that rejecting results due to technical flaws is intellectually lazy. As a scientist, your job is more about trying to find value in other people's work than finding excuses to reject it.
I disagree with your premise. Part of our job as scientists (thankfully no longer mine) is to reduce the irrelevant and incorrect noisy as early as possible. I have seen so many grad students get excited by a paper and put enormous effort into reproducing somethign that was a false or fake result.
If you want to determine reliably whether something is irrelevant and incorrect noise, determining whether there is anything of value is a necessary first step.
I've seen many reproduction attempts in bioinformatics fail, because they person trying to reproduce the work didn't have the conceptual background to do it correctly. Instead of spending enough time studying the theory, they rushed directly to action.