A sliding door needing to be operable "without special knowledge" is interesting. Imagine if that code were expanded with "or uses latches and handles certified according to XYZ 123." Then someone can certify latches and handles (with installation instructions of course, like don't install them sideways). The building model would simply specify the make and model of latches and handles to be used, or if it's a simpler building maybe the model would only say "XYZ 123 compliant latches and handles."
This would decouple the complex English language from the need to know whether a door is compliant. Because it can be reasonably understood that a door will be operable without special knowledge if its latches and handles can be. Doors are often custom fabricated, but latches and handles rarely are. And a final check against idiocy can still be performed after construction, as it should be today.
Another approach to that kind of vague code requirement might be for compliance software to do automated checks and also spit out the list of for-human-checking items. If the permitting authority only has to do things like "check the sliding door handles aren't daft" and not also "measure a lot of distances to emergency exits" it ought to speed things up still. The question then would be: are code requirements mostly of the objective "electric sockets must be at least 1m away from the bathtub" type or the assumes-human-evaluation "doors must be easily operable" type ?
> the same building, under the same code provisions, had 0 violations of egress provisions in one jurisdiction, and 16 violations in another jurisdiction. Multiply this variation times the 20,000 permitting jurisdictions
There are lots of inefficiency here. Are there any effort to harmonize the code? Building code, fire code, tax code...
There are trade organizations, metropolitan planning organizations, and quasi-government entities that write model development codes that several communities may adopt as-is, but cities and counties are all able to adopt, modify, and repeal codes as their political representation sees fit as allowed by probable interpretation of state law.
There really isn’t a way to make everyone have the same laws everywhere while having local representative government.
However you can restrict what local government gets to pick from so that there's less arbitrary variation.
For example we don't need a code in one town that requires ramps with inclines no more than 15% and maximum distance between flat stages of 10 metres, then the next town has 2 in 11 inclines and vertical climb between stages maximum two and a half feet. They both actually want "You know, a ramp, for like wheelchairs and prams and stuff" and they shouldn't be left to make up the specifics.
It is limited by state and federal law, and ambiguous language means that the law is whatever the bureaucrat reviewing your site plan thinks it means at that moment.
This would decouple the complex English language from the need to know whether a door is compliant. Because it can be reasonably understood that a door will be operable without special knowledge if its latches and handles can be. Doors are often custom fabricated, but latches and handles rarely are. And a final check against idiocy can still be performed after construction, as it should be today.