Don't get me wrong, I do it all the time, I feel it is safe, industry standard, and in agreement with the intent of the Code. When I started in this thread, I saw no complaint with the work as described.
But when rereading the section, carefully, and fair-mindedly, I can see no way to legitimately discount the conjunction 'and' in the beginning of the section, in (A).
As written, I would call it a possible violation of 330.30(A), by violating (B). To determine the pure logic of it, we need to leave (C) and (D) out of it, as we are not talking about 'supporting'.
Or, I could be completely wrong. :roll: