The New York State Steel Construction Manual doesn't follow D1.5 (though it was the original basis for D1.5). They have separate chemical requirements for weathering steel chemistry (similar but not identical to the A5.23 requirements for those particular designations), and the chemistry is to be taken from the AWMT specimen or the broken ends of the Charpy specimens. This actually is in keeping with the A5.23 alternative of taking the chemistry from the reduced section tension test specimen. Though A5.23 does say, "In case of dispute, the weld pad shall be the referee method." So dmilesdot might want to contemplate doing an A5.23 weld pad for chemistry. (I know, that's not what dmilesdot was asking.)
Dmilesdot doesn't say which flux-electrode combination is being used, but A5.23 has a range of 0.75-1.10 for Ni1, so let's assume that's it. NYS SCM requirement for Ni1 is 0.80-1.10, a little more restrictive (and the PQR would still fail). But I'm not sure how fair it is for the NYS SCM (if I may dare question the NYS SCM...) to require similar chemistry with a weld procedure qualification test performed with A 709 Gr. 50W (or A 588) base metal, where nickel might be as high as 0.50%, as an A5.23 chemistry test that might use A 537 for the base metal, with nickel no higher than 0.28%. In theory, the middle of that groove should show little to no base metal dilution, but if that were a completely safe bet, why would they bother with the weld pad?
Hg