"Deal with it"
OK, I think that's permission to take this otherwise resolved thread a little off topic!
Hey, if you want to specify an expensive practice even when it's unnecessary in a particular set of circumstances, I don't have a problem with that- unless you're unwilling to PAY for it in cost and schedule.
When the spec calls out an unnecessary practice, which is not followed because it makes no sense, and this is called out during inspection as a defect- "repairing" that "defect" is a little irksome, especially when the client themselves are inconvenienced by the delay. The trouble is, the person who wrote the spec is seldom available to give their opinion about whether or not the "defect" is acceptable!
When the spec calls out a practice that is physically impossible, or will render their resulting unit inoperable, that gets a little comical. And when one company's spec calls out a practice as mandatory, and another company's spec calls out the SAME practice as prohibited, that gets a little comical too.
I can tell you that it's far easier to get people to follow rules that make sense, especially when a little explanation is given in a guidance document as to why a particular practice is called out.