I'd like to suggest that the moiré in this scene is actually in the scene, and produced by the interaction of the venetian blinds with a mesh screen. The moiré in this case is not produced by an interaction with the sensor so much, but is there to be seen with the naked eye, just as you'd see when looking through two mesh screens. For that reason, I don't expect the moiré tool to be able to fix that, and I wouldn't fault the camera.
It's the camera, really, and it does exactly what it was designed for. The proof is in the detail, as shown here (a crop from Simon's image):
The optics of a camera cannot
render detail without a tiny bit of blur, and the demosaicing also loses a few percent of resolution. Yet the zoomed in detail shows single
pixel wide horizontal lines, until the phase of the pattern in the image is exactly between two sensels which results in abrubtly no contrast at all. There is no such thing as high contrast single pixel wide detail, unless the detail is exactly the size of the sensel aperture, it is positioned exactly aligned with the sensel, and the lens is (not just theoretically) perfect (= no diffraction and no residual lens aberrations whatsoever).
If it were scene detail that is already aliased because of two overlayed screens, then that wouldn't produce single pixel wide lines, and the angle of the single pixel lines would probably not be as horizontal.
To take away any doubt for the disbelievers, it could help if Simon were able to show a closer view of the detail so we would know what it is that we are looking at.
Mind you, this will only occur in the plane of focus, and with relatively little diffraction, and a decent lens to begin with. This is why it wil not always show, but sometimes it can be a pain for certain subject matter. When prepared for the occasional occurrence of moiré, one could take 2 shots, one regular and one at f/18, and then in postprocessing replace the moiré affected parts with the diffraction smoothed and deconvolution sharpened parts. An even more effective AA-blur would come from a tiny bit of defocus (although we'd have to guess how much is enough), but that could also change the size of the image a bit if the subject is close, making it a bit harder to make a composite.
A shot at f/18 will effectively kill all relevant red and green wavelength resolution (even for the highest subject contrast) beyond the Nyquist frequency of the D800E, so aliasing cannot occur anymore. The Nyquist frequency of the D800(E) sensor is given by its sensel pitch, assumed to be approx. 4.88 micron, which equals 102.459 cycles/mm. Diffraction from a circular aperture for green light (the most important contributor to luminance) will already reduce the modulation transfer at 98 cy/mm to virtually zero. So there is not modulation left at the limit of what the D800E sensor could resolve. Cameras with different sensel pitches will require a different F-stop to totally prevent aliasing, e.g. a 6.4 micron sensor without AA-filter would require f/22.