240.4(G) tells you that the OCPD sizing for air conditioner circuit conductors are found in Article 440. Part IV of Article 440 tells you how to size the conductor and Part III tells you how to size the short circuit and ground fault protection.
I understand this is how we typically view ocpd and conductor sizing, but I am just being critical (overly critical, perhaps :roll

on the actual wording of the code and disregarding the unwritten intent for the sake of discussion...
If you'll note that 240.4(D) states, "Unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E) or (G), the overcurrent protection shall not exceed that required by (D)(1) through (D)(7) after any correction factors for ambient temperature and number of conductors have been applied."
So we have one part of 240.4(A) through (G) that says it is rendered moot when permitted in 240.4(G)... so now I ask where is that same type of statement rendering 240.4(B) moot when the 240.4(G) comes into play.
Yes, Article 440 Part III is used to size the ocpd
at a maximum. Yes, Article 440 Part IV is used to size the conductors
at a minimum. The point here is that there is no direct correlation in Article 440 between the ocpd and the circuit conductor's ampacity. It seems to be assumed that any resulting combination of OCPD and circuit conductors will be compliant. Yet I see nowhere in either Article 240 or Article 440 which specifically relinquishes or amends the requirement of 240.4(B).
I understand how the code is currently interpretted. So this post is only intended as food for thought, and not to upset the status quo
