I see a blue switch box was relocated with the result that the romex sheathing ends about 1/2 inch short of the interior of the box. There is a rule that the sheathing must extend at least 1/4 inch inside the box. How significant is this?
Not sure what you’re asking. The NEC requires the 1/4" if it’s not installed as such then it’s a violation. Is it a hazard is anyone’s guess.
Is it going to be inside a wall?
NEC 314.17 ©: © Nonmetallic Boxes and Conduit Bodies:
…]the sheath shall extend not less than 6 mm (1⁄4 in.) inside
the box and beyond any cable clamp.
Like Robert said, it’s technically a violation.
Seeing as NM sheath offers virtually NO mechanical protection anyway, of course, it’s not a “real” hazard.
But, it is a sign of sloppy work, which should make one question the quality of the rest of the wiring done by that person.
What difference does that make?
Because in a wall it is protected.
It happens all the time …It just needs to be pulled in the box a little.
Man! That ain’t critical !
According to the OP, the box was relocated.
The picture that comes to mind is NM cable that’s stretched tight, without enough length to push inside the box.
Not a big deal in and of itself, and hard to judge without a picture, of course, but again things like these make me look for other signs of work done by an “unqualified person”
In a wall it is also hidden, so when the sparks begin to fly, nobody will be able to see them and prevent the home from burning to the ground! :twisted:
I didn’ say it was critical or not.
It is a defect. If you call it out in one case you should call it out in the other.
Let me see if I get this …
The outside sheathing of the wire was not in the outlet box by a 1/2 inch?
If anything it is an issue and not a defect.
We may be getting caught in the semantics here…
My personal 2 cents’ worth of advice: Indicate the NM clamping issue on the report, and look carefully for any other issues/defects that may be related to any recent electrical work.
So what is the difference in your opinion of an issue vs. a defect?
Like David, I would like to know also. 
All defects are issues.
Are all issues defects?
When does an issue become a defect?
What constitutes a defect?
That is what I’m asking Roy Lewis.
He looks at an issue with one eye and it’s a defect. The same issue with the other eye is not. Just asking him for clarification.
Interesting article here;
What Are Construction Defects?
By: Michael S. Poles, GC, CM, RCI, DABFET, ACFE
Since the “Building Boom” of the 1980’s and the advent of the ten year cycle ( California Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 337.15 ) for “LATENT DEFECTS” ( A latent defect is one that a property owner does not know about and
would not be expected to discover through the exercise of reasonable care. ) construction defects claims and
subsequent litigation has exploded into horrific proportions.