Which statement about engineering judgments is false?

The statement that engineering judgments do not need to be approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) is false because engineering judgments often require validation by the AHJ to ensure they comply with applicable codes, standards, and regulations. The AHJ plays a crucial role in interpreting the rules and ensuring safety and compliance, meaning any engineering judgment made must be presented and approved to ensure it meets jurisdictional expectations.

In contrast, the requirement of extensive documentation for all engineering judgments acknowledges that thorough records are necessary to support the rationale and details behind such judgments. This creates a clear understanding of the decision-making process and ensures that there is accountability.

Moreover, adhering to local codes and regulations is a fundamental competency for any engineering practice, as it guarantees that all work aligns with safety and regulatory standards typical in the area.

Regarding the notion that an engineering judgment represents a temporary solution, this can be accurate in contexts where a definitive resolution or design solution is not immediately feasible. Engineering judgments may serve as interim measures until more permanent solutions are developed and implemented.