Well, George, you bring up an interesting set of circumstances.
Let us say, for the sake of discussion, that a man puts 10 wires in a pipe that NEC says is full with 9. And, let's say the AHJ catches it, and refuses to sign off on the C of O.
Lawsuits follow, and it winds up before twelve of your neighbors for decision.
The first issue is one of competence. That is, who is qualified to make the decision. It's pretty hard to convince twelve strangers that YOU know better than a generally accepted code, that was applied fairly. The jury is going to want to hear of your schooling, your licenses, your specific experience. The burden is going to be on you to justify your breaking away from the proven path.
The next hurdle will be to show why there was no code compliant manner in which the job could have been done. Make no mistake - the code, having been accepted, and with a wealth of history behind it, will be presumed correct.
If you take the position that a "Professional Engineer" license, by statute, gives you absolute authority to do as you please, the jury will be shown how neither engineering school curriculum, nor the PE exam, have the slightest aquaintance with the electrical trade. Indeed, you'll be lucky to find a college bookstore that sells the NEC.
This will have you, in effect, making the case that you have superior knowledge in a subject in which you have absolutely no training.
It would help your argument if you could point to other situations that followed your example ... either as to the actual solution, or that supported the assertion that anyone could "engineer" themselves a variance.
It would be a lot like a traffic engineer arguing that speed limits didn't apply to him. I'd like to see the jury that would agree with that.
