This thread is so far afield from where it started that you might as well create a new one.
I think it's quite germane, frankly. And it gives me a chance to pound the pulpit on one of my favourite topics: giving code references, always.
Let me divide the inspector-client situation into two groups.
1) Inspectors who don't know what they're doing and a client who may or may not. I'd divide this into two classes:
1a) A person tasked with responsibility who has no idea what the duty entails. In our area, the province has been stupidly slow in requiring that inspectors have any training whatsoever, so a large portion of buildings in municipal areas have been constructed with permits issued by the CAO/public works boss .... despite the fact that those individuals had little to no Code knowledge. In these cases, it's up to the builder/design team to ensure compliance, since the CAO isn't going to be able to hold the construction crew accountable. Here, "passing the inspection" means squat, since the individual doing the inspection (if any are done at all) aren't qualified to actually state that construction meets code. This situation scares the crap out of me, and unfortunately, I've mopped up after this scenario a few too many times. It ain't purty.
1b) An inspector who thinks they know what they are doing, but doesn't. I've sadly seen far too many examples of inspectors who lack the knowledge/experience/Code-reading capacity to actually make meaningful evaluations, but hide behind myth/bluster/ignorance/whatever and in some cases, are telling clients to do things that are expensive, wrong, impossible, or blends of all three. An example that I think I can relate: there was a situation where an inspector *required* a builder to use "No. 2 clear cedar shingles" on a building. In Canada, No. 2 is for western cedar shingles, B Clear is for eastern. Barring genetic manipulation and a 30-year-wait, there ain't no such thing as "No. 2 clear": the inspector had crafted a request that
was categorically impossible to comply with. In this case, requesting the Code reference might actually cause the inspector to realize they are asking for something that isn't, in fact, required. (Lumped into this category would be the inspector who mistakenly believes that anything stamped by an engineer is good to go.)
2) Inspectors who know what they are doing and clients who may or might not. Four subclasses.
2a) An inspector who is Code-trained but might be unfamiliar with an element of Code or a standard they are now tasked with enforcing. I had a client who wanted to install a chicken fryer in their convenience store, as part of a renovation under permit. No problem, says I, show me the drawings/design for the NFPA 96-compliant ventilation assembly. Client says the fryer is a self-contained unit that doesn't need ventilation. I promptly delved into what might be NFPA 96 exempt by reading the fine print of NFPA 96 (and also lobbing a query at the OFM who knows more). It didn't take me long to find out what testing/parameters the unit needed to have, and communicate this to the client. After delving into the documents, I gained enough knowledge to ask
knowledgably and confidently the right questions and ultimately receive the data I needed to rule the unit was acceptable. Again, the solution is to go to the Code.
2b) An inspector who knows what they are doing, and a client who doesn't, and doesn't give a damn. We've all dealt with this sub-class of contractor: the guy who learned from a guy, and doesn't give a soggy fart for "them newfangled codes." This is the fly-by-night contractor who just doesn't care. Citing Code probably makes us look like stuffed-shirt authoritarians, but it covers our butts. Plus there's the slim chance buddy might actually try to learn.
2c) An inspector who knows what they are doing, and a client who wants to learn. Love this scenario, as it's a collaborative partnership waiting to happen. Citing code gives the contractor the chance to verify, understand and be compliant down the road. Its really funky when the builder asks a question that the inspector can't readily answer: then both learn something.
2d) An inspector who knows what they are doing, and a client/contractor who knows what they are doing. In this case, Code-backed citations for violations are simply the language of intelligent discourse. Example from a few years ago involved a new restaurant build. The GC was a standup character, knew his stuff. He'd hired a local builder to do a simple set of stairs, but the local builder is really good at residential construction ... not at commercial. The rise/run of these stairs was wrong. I didn't have to cite Code - the GC knew it was wrong the moment we discussed the matter. In this case, the Code reference was more a documentation of what we both knew. However, I suspect it gave the GC something to take to the subcon.