Depends on which panel you listen to.
I agree as this one has come up a few times at IAEI sectionals, the whole reason of the allowance of using GFCI's is to make an existing install safer without overly requiring circuits to be rewired that could get very costly if wall surface has to be removed, this goes back to grandfather laws.
A GFCI does not create a ground, it puts a safety trip in place if a person using a faulted appliance makes a connection to a alternate path back to source including Earth, it does not need an EGC to preform this function this is the simple "bird on a wire theory" if no other paths exist then there is no shock hazard.
The only UL listed method of testing a GFCI is the test button on the device, the same goes for AFCI's
in 406.3(D) there is no wording that says one type of load is exempt while another still requires an EGC, the very exceptions to 250.114 opens the door as to cause a problem with enforcement as it depends upon what type of appliance is plugged in, how can you enforce something that may not even be on site.
If 406.3(D) doesn't give allowances to 250.114 then where does it give allowances to any other receptacle required to have an EGC? it only say's where a equipment ground does not exist you may install a GFCI receptacle or 3 prong receptacles protected by a GFCI marked with "no equipment ground"
I remember what was said at one of the IAEI sectionals, that the reason many would rather see GFCI's is it allows a 3-prong receptacle to still be used that would eliminate the persons who would otherwise cut the ground prong off leaving the appliance without a ground even when it is plugged in to a grounded receptacle.
