Well, the drones it has are, it is implied, scanned by ART and then described as "state of the art corporate military tech" by the humans. This is where, far as I can tell, people extrapolated from.
Anyway, as someone who has worked in medium (corporate) environments, and talked enough with people in high (military) security environments, I don't actually see any conflict between what MB says being true, and the drones being cutting edge corp miltech.
Aside from anything else, security is a money pit: the company has to throw money in, but all they get back is "not losing money" - so, budgets are always going to be tight.
Which means they will be using miltech produced by the lowest bidder. They will cut every corner possible that doesn't compromise security (in the opinion of the executive, never in the field, who is judged by how little they spend)
This is why I read the comments about the education modules being junk and thought "that tracks". Likewise, I find it quite credible that someone living in (as?) the SecUnit body would notice all the shortfalls, without changing that it is recent generation, highly controlled corp miltech.
Ditto the drones. Easy to be better than anything public, maybe even best available, and yet still have rough edges and pains to operate.
For a real world equivalent, imagine spending three years working with the three OEMs to integrate a security feature into their devices. With the vendors highly motivated, because a fair number of tens of percents of their sales are to company, and if one vendor delivers they get all the business until the others catch up.
Anyway, after three years company goes through the process of designing, developing, building, testing, and then deploying an interposer that implements the security feature outside the device.
That takes a year and a half, and the vendors know, and are still working on the feature in the device, because they will still make company happy, and win that business while the others catch up.
