Rather than give it away, we should follow
ActionDave's rule where he said in the last sentence,
"AFCI Tech is a black box"
I liken the black box to a Roach Motel, where hacks go in, but don't come out.
The long post that detailed why AFCIs are mostly bogus is a good reason that anyone who doesn't want to use them is a hack
If clients come to me and don't want to waste their money on magic black boxes that are unproven and rely on scant-to-nonexistent hard statistical evidence and are 100% reliant on industry PR for a technical backing, it's not an issue of
hackness so much as a purely business decision as to whether I want the
supposed liability in the off event of a fire that may possibly be blamed on a lack of an AFCI by a hand waving "fire inspector" (about as competent as "home inspector") and a team of lawyers (who make up reality as they go).
I will take this into consideration with each job, and will not utilize a waiver as others made good points about "why admit guilt outright" regardless of that decision. Ultimately, much of my service area has amended out AFCI coverage so this is less of an issue for me. At least a few inspectors see it for what it is here.
Some people don't have anything to hang their hat on other than checking boxes, and then compensate with insults. Neither here nor there, of course...