I think anyone that's been through an Ofsted inspection would heartily agree they can leave a trail of destruction that, whilst supposed to improve schools, is an incredibly blunt instrument. In my own experience they frequently have a fixed agenda even prior to a visit.
When they leave and senior leaders are picking up the pieces, it's not difficult to see how dire outcomes can happen as they did in Ruth's case.
It's not as though an Ofsted leads to supporting improvement, simply that they pass verdict and onto the next school. Meanwhile all staff are impacted and unless Ofsted confer Good or Outstanding, surely in a world where education is so badly fractured this cannot be good for children's outcomes.
A poor Ofsted is a death knell for school's future finances, makes it nigh on impossible to recruit staff in an already difficult market and discourages retention of the many teachers needed to support the improvement.
I agree that transparency is good. Schools that are not giving children best outcomes should be identified. But this system is seriously flawed.