I mean, it could be disastrous, couldn't it? That foot could be the threshold of someone saying "Aw screw it, I'll just use my parent's frayed extension cord from the 70s."
And perhaps this kind of thing should be more explicit in the code - things that are for convenience and things that are actual life/death safety issues.
And as we see, the latter often involves things that only become apparent when disaster strikes.
As long as as you have enough water to use a shower that’s plenty to make a huge difference because they don’t operate like in the movies where everything in the building goes off at once. Instead you only get water when part of the sprinkler head got hot enough to melt.
Disastrous?
For heavy fixtures, like large chandeliers and ceiling fans, appropriate boxes also help with bearing the weight; preventing the fixtures from pulling out of drywall and being suspended only by the wiring.
The thing is, in the absence of someone (like an inspector) specifically checking, you can assume that anything that isn't immediately visible uses the cheapest possible materials and the fastest, shoddiest installation.
In my case, it may have been as simple as, "we didn't order enough junction boxes and we're running late as it is; just skip 'em".
> Like workplace safety rules, they are written in the blood of the dead.
Some of the rules are, but some of the rules aren't. When code calls for a maximum distance between electrical outlets, that's partially for convenience, and partly because of unsafe practices with extension cords, so there's some blood there, but if you miss the mark by a foot, it's not disasterous.
Uniform application of some rules without considerations for cost or practicality is foolish. For example, where I live, with my size house, any permitted remodeling triggers a requirement to retrofit fire sprinklers, despite the fact that I have a well which likely couldn't supply said fire sprinklers in a reasonable manner --- especially if a fire resulted in electricity being cut off, or was caused by unsafe heating choices when utility electricity was out of service (this is a common cause of house fires as I understand it). You could mitigate that with a high mounted water tank, but that's not actually required, might require substantial engineering to ensure the weight of the water and tank doesn't exceed the structure's weight bearing capacity, and would add significant maintenance to ensure the condition of the tank such that it did not leak and cause major damage to the structure. Oh, and how are you supposed to get such a tank into an attic like that anyway?
Structural requirements tend to be more likely to be written from experience though. And earthquakes and high winds have a way of striking everywhere. TR is known to be seismically active, so cutting corners on earthquake safety is a worse risk/cost tradeoff than in places where earthquakes are rare.