Nope. I think I see why, too.
The letters for the word "owl" are found, in order, in the word "knowingly". Also, the word "faulty" contains the letters "faul" which scans like "fowl", or bird; and the last three letters of the word "fowl" are "owl".
I thought it seemed odd because the adverb "knowingly" does not apply to any sentient action by any entity explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the headline.
Had the adjective been replaced by a past participle of a verb, e.g., "Owl data knowingly forged", that would clearly be an abbreviated version of "Owl data [is/was] knowingly forged [by someone]". As such, the adverb "knowingly" clearly applies to the implied actor.
As the headline is written, however, the only entity to which the adverb "knowingly" could apply would be the data itself. I find it amazing that any type of data, whether generated honestly or not, could have the level of sentience applied thereby.