Bad design: when costs' arguments overcome engineering ones

I'm replacing the breaker of a multiple socket, as breaker is doomed to fail first while rest of socket still being new, also breaker's cost being kind of a 5/6th the cost of a new socket, it makes sense to change breaker instead of buying a new socket.
The following image shows how the breaker was connected by default:

You can see line and ground input wires going around breaker's housing, coming to two rods and then entering the breaker's poles from the side opposite to power cord. This way, input wires are tightened between breaker's output poles, which are also cutting into input wires' sheating (see detail here-under), risking a short-circuit to bypass the breaker.

The simplest way for getting input from power cord to breaker's input poles is straight through the opening in breaker's housing right in front of power cord, but that would require two different workers to solder input and output wires to the breaker, moving it in a uncomfortable position for soldering. Instead, in the chosen way, one worker solders every breaker's poles, putting the input ones to lateral rods, while the other worker has to just bring power cord, strengthen it to the socket's frame and fix live and neutral wires to the lateral rods.
The adopted solution is more economical for sure, but is it safer in the end-use? Come on!