I disagree. If it's an "interpretation" of the code, it should be both universal and justifiable: in other words, the inspector should be able to give a clear, concise explanation for his interpretation that is backed up by logic and by other inspectors. There should be a broad consensus among inspectors and industry professionals for that interpretation of the code.
The code is typically pretty clear-cut. Usually, when the inspector is "interpreting" the code, he's either wrong and won't admit it, or he simply doesn't know better.
