[wireties]

The analogy between the rules of the game and the rules that govern a society is not entirely apropos. I think FRC is purposefully designed to mimic a quick-turn engineering effort by a company of mixed talents and resources (energetic young engineers and older wiser engineers, ie students and mentors). It is intended to mimic "real life". We build web sites, project management is encouraged, many teams have corporate-ish structures, etcetera. So the rules are more like a contract which is a standalone-ish document. The contract may refer, for convenience, to external guidelines (the Federal Rules of Acquisition, safety practices and/or technical standards like RS-232 for example) but the contract stands alone. Precedence does not play a role. The terms of the last contract for the same product or with the same customer carry no particular weight. There is contract law of course but that generally classifies contracts and deals with disputes, methods of offerance and acceptance etc. Contract law would not typically cover differences in technical practices or ambiguity in requirements.

No contract is ever perfect - my experience is that many are pitiful. So try to methodically arrive at an agreement with the customer, FIRST in this case. Instead of "lawyering" terminology it is important to query the GDC and process the rules and the answers in a common sense manner. A few years ago I got in trouble with some young engineers on CD by suggesting (and in the end being way too snarky) that they not risk other people's money (sponsors) on what was, to me and other grey hairs, obviously a drawing with incomplete comments destined to be corrected. The GDC did correct the drawing.

A good outcome in the "real world" is where you deliver a clever conforming solution, make a profit and your customer is satisfied and inclined to return. A good outcome in FIRST is productive and enjoyable participation of the students and a clever robot that passes inspection and plays well. Good luck to all!