This is a good example of engineering today.

That you would select a failed Nissan CVT as 'a good example of engineering today' speaks nothing the the state of engineering today but it speaks volumes to your perspective. Cheers!!! Cheers2
In this example from YouTube, Ivan admitted that he never changed the fluid. That his wife's car got to this high milage with no maintenance is perhaps an example of pretty good engineering. As said by Imp4, perspective.
I'm with KGMtech here, 186k on a neglected Jatco CVT- not exactly the example I'd use to point out "bad engineering". What's strange is that, with the plethora of junked Nissans due to CVT failure, <span style="font-style: italic">this</span> is the example that's been held up as the proof of bad engineering.
"I wonder if we can clean this thing out and put a new belt on there". Couldn't watch any more of it. 186K miles on any type of newer automatic transmission for this duty, with no fluid service is phenomenal.
A fluid change has nothing to do with a shaft drive system that was not correctly designed, as well as the choice of heat treat in that area. Like he says the pulley that slides on the shaft had no wear in the keyways. The wear on the variable pulleys was real good. The belt let go from the messed up shaft not the fluid. Torsional stress messed the shaft up, it was not a fluid issue. If it was a fluid issue the sheaves would have been a mess.