List anything that they're paid to list? OK, then to what standard .... there's the rub .... and when the standard references the NEC, they're precluded from making up other criteria.
An aside here: Yes, UL has strayed away from only 'testing for public safety.' Still, I'd love to hear ANY tales of ANY person with UL EVER doing something 'just for the money.' AFAIK, they've been remarkably incorruptable. I may not like them, but I won't tolerate slander, either.
Irresponsible to list something not allowed? Oddly enough, that's UL's position. Feel free to debate it with them. Let us know how you do with that.
Using the ground wire as a neutral for incidental things like motion sensors? Alas, that IS allowed by the NEC. The NEC only forbids "objectionable" current on the ground wire. Just what is 'objectionable?' Well, if you did deeply enough, I'll bet you'll find some gents got together - industry, code, UL, etc. - and just arbitrarily decided that "x" amount was the most they would allow as 'not objectionable.' I'll bet that figure has since been incorporated in some standard somewhere - and you can be certain that it's not by UL alone. Look for IEEE, ANSI, NEMA, someone else to have taken point on that.
I giggle at all this drivel about the meaning of 'driven.' As far as I'm concerned, it qualifies as 'driven' if you push it in with the palm of your hand.
Evidence of damage to the head? This tool applies all the force of a jackhammer to drive the rod- yet it never touches the head:
http://www.electricsubstationsafety.com/whats_new.html
You can pull it out? So what? Where does the code say it can't be pulled out?
The only objective code requirement I see is 25-Ohm requirement ... and you can avoid that by using two rods.