I have no grudge against you, but I do think your concept would not satisfy the code requirements. The reason is that the overhang is measured to the "support base." The corbel you offer as a solution is not the base that is supporting the weight of the countertop. Depending on its method of attachment, it might carry some share of the load. But if you remove the corbel, the countertop's weight will still be carried by the base cabinetry. By contrast, if you tried to remove the base cabinetry and leave only the corbel, there would be no support for the weight of the countertop. From this I infer that the code language is addressing the distance from the edge of the countertop to the face of the base cabinetry. What makes that easier for me to believe is my earlier discussion about putting bar stools under the overhang.
I appreciate your well thought out response, Charlie. However, a corbel does technically constitute a support from an engineering, and therefore legal, standpoint. Consider the case of a flexible countertop substrate. One that will sag without support. If that corbel is removed, then the countertop will sag. It is therefore a support, and meets the legal definition of code as such.
Yes, I fully understand that it is a technicality and workaround, but it is fully legal and defensible in a court of law.
Some readers might be wondering why I keep saying "in a court of law". That's because that is what the NEC represents once it is adopted by local governments. The NEC is a private institution and is nothing more than words on paper. But once it gets adopted by local government, it becomes law, and its words become legal jargon. To either contest or defend a passage of code, it becomes a matter of legal wording.
You can have a local inspector that argues whether it is or is not code compliant, but once it is kicked up the chain, it becomes a legal issue. Words do matter. That's the reason why the NEC is written in such "legalese" language.