Here are some example questions that Turing proposed when initially describing the test:
>"I have K at my K1, and no other pieces. You have only K at K6 and R at R1. It is your move. What do you play?"
>"In the first line of your sonnet which reads "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day," would not "a spring day" do as well or better?"
It seems to me that it isn't a movement of the goalposts to demand that the interrogators are adversarial and as challenging as possible - it's what Turing originally envisioned.
As such, "The AI did not pass the Turing test because the interrogators were not sufficiently challenging" becomes a standard impossible to beat. The reductio on this is that in order for AI to pass the Turing test, it has to fool everyone on the planet which is not what I believe is intended.
Rather, we should set an upper bound on what a reasonable interpretation of "as challenging as possible" means.