A TQ has been raised and the response given clarifies that the most onerous case is required, yet further ambiguities existed within the WI on the same issue were not identified within the TQ or response. Must further instruction be given to address the other ambiguities the TQ has not mentioned?
If instruction is thought necessary do we then revert to evaluating the changes using NEC cl 63.8, being the least onerous position for the Contractor, despite the TQ directive?
In summary is the TQ of higher status and should be considered definitive on further discovery of ambiguity with the same issue.
For simplicity consider issue relates to either demolishing a shed or to leave in place.