When was the last time you went to a concert and heard a violinist flub a few passages in a concerto? Probably it has never happened to you. A violinist who flubs a few passages is not competent to perform a concerto. Some concert violinists are known for incredibly precise technique while others are known to take a few liberties, but they can all play the notes at a very high standard.
This is analogous to timekeeping for fine watches. Some are very accurate (a high standard) and some are amazingly accurate (an even higher standard); the ones that cannot keep time to at least a high standard are incompetent and must be excluded from consideration regardless of their other qualities. That's right: in my view a watch that cannot keep very good time must be excluded from consideration as completely as a violinist who cannot play the notes.
There are plenty of violinists who can play all the notes in any concerto, but you wouldn't want to listen to them and consequently they do not perform concertos in public. What distinguishes the desirable performers? Beauty of tone and phrasing, originality of interpretation, emotion -- in short, artistry. Artistry requires immense attention to detail, but mere attention to detail will not make an artist: pure talent is required.
This is analogous to the artistry of fine watches. Once they have passed over the threshold of being high-standard timekeepers, it is artistry that makes them As in the case of the violin, a great deal of attention to detail is required, but does no good without talent: the horological world is heavily populated with very finely worked watches in which the whole is less than than the sum of its parts.
In each case, then, there are two thresholds: the first is accuracy; the second is attention to detail. Any violinist or watch company willing to devote enough resources to the task can get over those thresholds. Once that has been done, however, there is no substitute for sheer talent in taking the final step to true artistry.