"I cannot grasp how a dedicated 120/20 circuit could be considered a 'code violation'? "
A 20-a circuit is a code violation when the appliance it is designed for draws less than 16 amps. Add the required additional overcurrent protection, and it's no longer a '20-a' circuit.
"please explain how a 'code minimum' design could possibly not meet code."
We've had plenty of these situations arise. I've posted plenty of such pictures here at ECN. One of my favorite examples was of an EMT conduit mounted at waist level, where it was smashed and ripped out by passing lift truck traffic.
The code does allow EMT as an 'approved' method, and EMT is often the least of the methods allowed in commercial use (local amendments). Article 110 also states that conductors will be protected from mechanical damage- and the damage clearly proves that the EMT was NOT sufficient protection.
Yet, folks will insist that EMT "meets code." Even at this forum various inspectors have not been able to grasp the idea that the NEC does provide the basis for 'disqualifying' an otherwise approved method. IMO, to assert that the NEC allows for a re-creation of something that has been shown to be inadequate protection shows a complete failure of critical thinking.
