"That is if they can decipher the ünless',increases, reduces, remaining portions, delays, weather or nots, despites, with or withouts; considers, exceeds, unforeseens, suitable locations, agrees, displaced times, FDP 1, FDP 2, periods."
and there in lies the problem "Interpretation".
The lawyers who put this stuff together, by nature write the rules this way, because they imagine it will provide lawyers and courts and judges to descide what they actually mean with steady income.
Where this theory falls down is the industry is already on its knees with compliance costs and cannot afford to run to court to get a judge to determine what a rule means.
The enforcers are well aware of this so they can run rampant through the industry with their own particular interpretations secure in the knowledge that there's nobody who can afford to challenge them.
The AG boys provided us with a solution, but the industry as a whole will have to get together and produce it.
Generic manuals approved by the head office would make a lot of this compliance madness go away and go a long way to standardizing operations.