&gt;I&#x27;m pretty surprised by how far this thing has gone!!<p>Haha - so do we now have two examples of emergent complexity?<p>FYI, it&#x27;s not that the complexity &#x2F; length of the code caused me to <i>fail</i> per se - I&#x27;ve actually used that section of the code to design a kitchen - it&#x27;s not user friendly, but it does ultimately work in that I could use it to find and follow all the rules applicable to <i>my</i> design. But I did <i>fail</i> to find a reference to the &#x27;18 inch rule&#x27; that you stated, but that&#x27;s because that would require me to read the entire code, for which I don&#x27;t have time (you need the entire thing because it has a nasty habit of having the rules spread out over multiple sections, probably in the interest of abstraction &#x2F; generalization. ADA may well be an example of that)<p>One other thought: since the SF rules are written directly in relation to the CA rules, it&#x27;s not like they are two competing standards. One if just a layer on top of the other. Of course, that could still create a contradiction, but in the one case where I saw that, the DBI found a way around it.