That sounds like a well-reasoned decision. Here's a breakdown of why your thinking makes sense and some potential implications

Understanding the Context
NFPA's Role

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) develops codes and standards aimed at minimizing the risk of fire. Their codes are widely adopted and enforced by jurisdictions around the world.

Annual Meeting

A key part of the code development process involves open meetings where proposals are discussed, debated, and voted on.

NITMAM (Not in the Mandate of the Committee)

This is a procedural point raised when a proposal falls outside the officially defined scope of the committee responsible for that section of the code. It's a significant hurdle.

Code vs. Instruction

This is a critical distinction. Codes are enforceable rules that establish minimum safety requirements. Instructions provide guidance on how to comply with those rules. Codes should define what needs to be achieved; they shouldn't dictate the specific method of achieving it (unless absolutely necessary).

Why Your Decision is Logical Scope Conflict

The NFPA representative likely contacted you because they recognized the potential merit of your NITMAM, but also anticipated objections based on scope. If your proposal deals with specific wiring instructions rather than broader safety objectives, it inherently conflicts with the purpose of an enforceable code.

Poor Chance of Success

If your NITMAM is genuinely perceived as an instruction manual approach, the chances of overturning a NITMAM motion are very slim. Committee members are typically cautious about expanding the scope of their responsibilities and moving away from performance-based requirements.

Efficient Use of Resources

Attending the meeting would involve travel expenses, time away from other commitments, and significant effort to prepare your case. If you believe the proposal is fundamentally misaligned with the committee's mandate, it's a prudent decision to allocate your resources elsewhere.

Maintaining Credibility

Presenting an argument you know is likely to fail can damage your credibility with the committee. It's better to be seen as someone who understands the code development process and respects its boundaries.

Potential Alternatives (If You Still Want to Influence the Code)

Even though you declined to attend this meeting, you might still have options to influence the code in the future: Reframe Your Proposal

Can you re-word your suggestion to focus on a broader safety objective rather than specific wiring instructions? Instead of dictating how to do something, focus on what needs to be achieved to improve safety.

Suggest a Companion Document

Perhaps your wiring instructions would be more appropriate in a recommended practice or a guide published by NFPA, rather than being part of the core code. These documents offer more detailed guidance without being legally enforceable.

Contact a Different Committee

Is there another NFPA committee whose scope might be a better fit for your proposal?

Collaborate with Others

Partner with other experts in the field to strengthen your proposal and build a consensus. A unified voice is often more effective than an individual one.

Submit for a Future Cycle

The NFPA code development process is cyclical. You can refine your proposal based on feedback and submit it for consideration in a subsequent revision cycle.

Focus on Education and Training

If your wiring instructions are best practices, consider promoting them through industry training programs, articles, and presentations. Widespread adoption of best practices can eventually influence code changes.

In conclusion, your decision to decline the invitation seems sensible given the potential limitations of your NITMAM and the potential for it being deemed an instruction. By recognizing the boundaries of the code and the committee's mandate, you've demonstrated a good understanding of the code development process. Flag for review