Shane, Great post giving clues and thanks!
When dealing with contract and Code compliance, ideally one doesn't need to be that overzealous to apply a non-mandatory recommendation from a standard, a customer inspector or 3rd party is simply there to verifiy the compliance. I learned to use "overzealous" to describe such behavior from Walter Sperko's publication, too
Before someone jumping out to tell the history of why such rule was set, I'm still not 100% convinced.
If the weaving is wide enough and properly fast, such as when making cover beads of the groove weld, during the travel of arc from one side to the other, weld pool will have enough time to solidify before the arc comes back and partially remelts the previously solidified bead. In this case one is not giving excessive heat input with too slow travel speed, even visually a pretty wide cover bead can be observed.
Or, is there a definition of "weave" limiting the maximum width? I.e., when you are “weaving” too wide, you are not actually weaving but changing the welding direction~
These wording to limit the bead/weave width may be misleading and many reading this would easily get into an assumption of “the wider the beads/weave width, the higher the heat input”.
Al, thanks for the earlier replies and appreciate any ideas or thoughts~