The short version: Before accepting a claim that a building product is not code compliant, find out what authority the letter actually carries, review the challenged product's documentation for yourself, and then apply the same standard to the product being offered as the alternative.
To my architect and general contractor friends:
At some point in your career, someone is going to hand you a letter, an email, or a printout of an advisory opinion that says a product you're considering doesn't meet code. It'll come from a rep, a distributor, sometimes even forwarded through a contractor. It'll sound official. It'll cite real standards, real sections, and real language pulled from a real code official. And it'll arrive at a very convenient moment, usually right after a competing product got specified or won a bid.
I'm ashamed to say I've even done it myself, earlier in my career, before I understood how much damage that kind of move can actually do. So this isn't me pointing a finger from somewhere clean. It's me telling you what it looks like from having been on both sides of it.
I've watched this pattern play out enough times to recognize it. I'm not going to name anyone or any product here, because the pattern matters more than the players. It's not really about one company. It's about a move that gets made often enough in this industry that every architect, engineer, contractor, and specifier should know how to spot it.
Does a Code Official Advisory Opinion Apply to Your Project?
And here's the part that gets lost.
Many of the letters that get passed around aren't project-specific decisions. They're responses to a general question about a category of product, sometimes sent to a state or local code office without naming a specific building, address, permit, or set of plans.
That distinction matters.
A general advisory opinion may tell you how a code official views a product or method in a certain set of circumstances. But before treating that opinion as the answer for your project, ask a few basic questions. What kind of document is it? Who issued it? Was it a general response, a formal interpretation, or a decision tied to a specific project?
Some state or local authorities issue formal interpretations that carry more weight than an informal advisory response. That's why the first step should not be to dismiss the letter or accept it. The first step is to understand what it actually is.
Then ask the obvious question: Does it apply to this project?
A letter written about a hypothetical situation is not the same thing as a review of your actual drawings, product documentation, installation details, and permit. For a specific project, you still need to understand how the code authority with jurisdiction over that project views the proposed solution.
That matters with smoke curtains especially. The question is not whether a rep says a product is code compliant. The question is what the adopted code requires for the condition, what testing or approvals the product has, and what the code official reviewing the project accepts. I've written separately about when a smoke curtain is actually required by code if you want the broader framework.
Why the Timing of a Code Compliance Claim Matters
I've learned something the hard way over more than two decades in this industry. When a manufacturer or distributor loses a bid to a competing product, one response is to improve. Another response is to go looking for a reason the competing product shouldn't be allowed on the next project either.
That second path can look like this: someone submits a carefully worded, general question to a code official without naming the project they just lost. They get a response back, and that response starts getting passed around on future projects as though it settles the issue everywhere.
At that point, the letter can stop being a source of information and start becoming a sales tool.
That's why timing matters.
If a "general concern about code compliance" suddenly appears right after a specific bid gets lost, ask yourself why the concern wasn't raised six months earlier, or on the last ten projects where the same type of product was used without incident.
That doesn't prove the concern is wrong. It does mean you should look at it more closely.
The Same-Standard Test for Code Compliance Claims
Here's the test I'd encourage every architect to run before taking a compliance claim at face value, whether it's about a curtain, a door, a damper, or almost any other building product.
Does the rule being used to reject one product also apply to the product being offered instead?
I call this the Same-Standard Test.
In my experience, this question gets skipped constantly because everyone assumes the product that's already familiar, already specified, or already established in the market has cleared whatever bar is being used against the competitor.
Sometimes it has.
But sometimes, when you actually pull the testing, listings, evaluation reports, or other documentation for both products, you find that the same question being raised about one product also exists for the other one. The difference is that nobody ever went looking because the familiar product had been accepted for years.
This isn't hypothetical.
I've personally pulled a market-leading product's own third-party research report specifically to check this after watching that product get presented as the "safe" default against a competitor. The report stated, in its own language, that the product was being accepted as an alternate method rather than as a straightforward prescriptive solution.
That was the same basic issue being used to attack the competing product.
Nobody had checked both sides. The standard had only been pointed in one direction.
When a Safety Concern May Also Be a Sales Concern
I want to be careful here because most people raising genuine code questions are doing exactly that: raising a genuine question. Code compliance is not a game, and skepticism toward new products can be healthy. Architects, engineers, contractors, and code officials should ask hard questions.
But there's a difference between someone asking a question because they genuinely want the answer and someone asking a question because a particular answer helps them sell something.
The second version often looks a lot like the first. It uses the language of safety and code compliance. What it usually doesn't mention is the competitive context, the lost bid, or the fact that the person raising the concern sells the product that benefits if the concern sticks.
You're not being cynical by noticing that. You're doing your job.
The answer isn't to assume every code concern is a sales tactic. The answer is to look at the evidence, understand who has authority, and hold both products to the same standard.
What Architects Should Do When a Product Is Called Noncompliant
If one of these letters lands on your desk, here's the process I'd use.
1. Find out what the letter actually is
Ask whether it references your actual project or a general situation. Find out who issued it and whether it's an informal advisory response, a formal interpretation, or a project-specific decision.
2. Ask for the challenged product's documentation directly
Don't rely on one manufacturer's description of a competitor's testing or approvals. Ask the manufacturer being challenged for its own testing, listings, evaluation reports, installation requirements, and supporting documentation.
3. Review the product being offered as the alternative too
This is where the Same-Standard Test comes in. If one product is being rejected because of a particular testing, listing, approval, or code-path question, check the other product against the same requirement.
4. Take the actual question to the authority reviewing your project
If the issue requires an Alternate Means and Methods request, a product approval, or simply a conversation with the local code official, take the real facts to the person reviewing the project. Don't let a secondhand summary take the place of that conversation.
Alternate Means and Methods are not unusual in building design when a proposed solution meets the intent of the code through a different path. I discuss one example of that process in my article on passive atrium smoke control and horizontal fire curtains.
5. Ask the same question in both directions
If the concern is legitimate, it should survive the Same-Standard Test.
The same rule should apply no matter whose name is on the product.
The Bottom Line
Code compliance claims carry weight because they're supposed to be about safety, not competitive positioning. Most of the time, that's exactly what they are.
But when a compliance concern shows up at a very convenient time, comes from someone with a financial interest in the outcome, relies on a general letter instead of your actual project conditions, and applies a standard to only one side of a two-product comparison, it's worth slowing down before you let it settle the issue.
Ask what the letter actually is.
Ask what authority it carries.
Look at the documentation yourself.
And most importantly, apply the same standard in both directions.
If you've had something like this land on a project and want a second set of eyes on it, reach out at thesmokecurtainguy.com.
⸻
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a general advisory opinion from a code official apply to my specific project?
It depends on what kind of opinion it is and who issued it. A general advisory response is different from a formal interpretation or a decision tied to a specific permit. Before relying on the letter, find out what authority it carries and whether it addresses the conditions on your actual project.
What should I do if someone tells me a product isn't code compliant?
Ask for the underlying documentation directly from the manufacturer being challenged. Find out whether the opinion you've been shown applies to your project, review the testing and listings for both products, and take any unresolved compliance question to the code authority reviewing the project.
How can I tell if a code compliance concern is genuine or competitively motivated?
You may not be able to know someone's motivation, so focus on the evidence. Check the timing of the concern, ask who benefits from the claim, and use the Same-Standard Test: does the rule being used to reject one product also apply to the product being offered instead?
Who has final authority over code compliance on a project?
For a specific project, the decision comes through the code authority that has jurisdiction over that project. State or local formal interpretations may also matter, depending on how the jurisdiction administers the code. Manufacturer claims, sales letters, and general advisory opinions can provide information, but they are not all the same thing and should not automatically be treated as a project-specific decision.
What is the Same-Standard Test?
The Same-Standard Test is a simple way to evaluate a product code compliance claim: if one product is being rejected because of a particular code, testing, listing, or approval requirement, check whether the product being offered as the alternative meets that same requirement.
⸻
This post started as a voice dictation, me talking through what I know after 24 years in the field. It was edited and formatted with AI assistance. The knowledge and opinions are mine.
— John, The Smoke Curtain Guy
