I don't think it is a case of growing senile. I think it is a case of asking, "what does the poster mean when he uses the term "pressure vessel code"."
I agree that section VIII does not invoke additional requirements for the purpose of qualifying the welder, but can one say the same about the other code sections that are often (correctly or incorrectly) included in the term "pressure vessel codes"?
Once again, I go back to the question, "If the WPS isn't qualified properly, i.e., the supporting PQR does not include the requisite tests required by the construction code, is the welder qualified to the unsupported WPS properly qualified in accordance with Section IX?"
My thoughts are that a review of the welder qualification record must include a review of the WPS used and, if applicable, a review of the supporting PQR. Welding documentation is a house of cards that collapses if the PQR is not complete in accordance with Section IX and includes the additional requirements of the applicable construction code. Specifically, the need to perform impact testing comes to mind. If the applicable construction code requires impact testing, but the PQR does not include notch testing, the WPS is not properly qualified. As such, the WPS may not include heat input limitations necessary to ensure adequate notch toughness in the production welds. As a result, the welder who is following the WPS that isn't qualified for notch toughness, may be employing a technique that runs counter to a WPS that would have included heat input controls had it been properly qualified.
One purpose of qualifying the welder using a qualified WPS is to ensure the welder can work within the constrains of a WPS. Generally, if the welder does not weld within the ranges listed by the qualified WPS, the test is considered a failed test.
Best regards - Al