I am still not sure why this isn't a 250.104(C) situation.
I don't know... I kind of went round and round with that same thought before I originally posted, but the reason that I didn't feel that 250.104[C] applied here was because it mentions structural metal that forms a building frame and that this framing must be bonded at the service enclosure or the grounding electrode conductor at the service, etc... and that the points of attachment must be accessible, so it doesn't sound like it was intended here. It also refers back to 250.64, which doesn't really seem like it would relevant here either. I don't think that the reference to Table 250.66 would be correct here either even though it is about bonding conductors. If it were, we would have to pull a minimum #8 back to the service to bond metal stud walls, which I hope isn't true because that would be insane.
I would think 250.122 would be more inline instead, even though it is for EGC sizing, not bonding conductors.
Another thing that I'm not sure there would be any provision or exception to allow for the use of metal box as a means for bonding the stud walls.
At the moment, the articles I feel most closely apply, so far, are 250.4, 250.8 and 250.102, but of course, subject to change as things progress.
Who would of thought that something as simple as bonding interior metal stud walls could be such a terror to explain in NEC.
