I don't think it's fair to blame the crankshaft grinder here, assuming that the grinding operation was not out of index, but rather solely the result the journal diameter reduction for the 2.200" diameter; adding stroke in the process changes the outcome some, but this observance is due to where Ford Motor Co. placed the oil drilling. The only appropriate statement would be oh-well, it-is-what-it-is!
And not intending to make excuses for the operator, but generally one grinds the mains first, then the rod journals, and perhaps this was a latter position in the grinding operation, and even when in the grinding process sometimes visibility is not so good until stopped at which point, well it-is-what-it-is; and hopefully the person contracting for the nonstandard operation is aware of the possible shortcomings of the modification, and that person must decide the usability of their creation, not the contracted machine operator, although that person may be willing to supply previous observations and opinions, particularly if inquired upon, it's not fair to make this result that persons' fault.
But yes, with the proximity of this oil hole breaching the surface so near the journal radius, it would not be considered "ideal".
Scott.