It's hard to bring up AFCI's without opening that entire can of worms. I would like to clarify a few things, though:
I do NOT hold to any manner of 'conspiracy' theory regarding AFCI's. I simply don't believe that the case has been made. I cannot think of any other time the code has required the use of a product that has not been yet made (as was done in the 96 edition), or where one code cycle attempted to bind the decisions of the next code cycle (AFCI's again, 96 and 02). That is bad law, however you look at it.
If there's a case to be made for AFCI's, the article certainly failed to make it. If anything, the effect was the opposite: it undermined the credibility of the presenter.
I mentioned the 'global warming' snafu simply because it has now been shown that the advocates were deliberately misrepresenting the data that they had. It was fraud, plain and simple. The behavior is similar enough in the two examples to make me ever more sceptical.
I sympathise with your panel problems. That is why I am puzzled as to the opposition there is to AFCI devices; isn't half a loaf better than none? That, though, is another discussion.
Remember: there are at least two instances in our lifetimes where firms have deliberately manipulated the code process for their own benefit. In both these cases, the crooks were screaming 'safety' as loud as they could - and in as dishonest a way as possible as well. Emotional appeals are, in my experience, rarely in my interest.
