Philip, the non-interference rule doesn't really address the subtlety I'm attempting to explore.
This latest thought-experiment (my latest rabbit-hole) was spawned from a decision I recently wrote.
There were unique characteristics of that situation which, at first, I had included a boat's RRS 14's "obligations" into the room that boat was already entitled to under RRS 18 and/or RRS 11. In other words, I had a boat's RRS 14 "obligations" influencing the size and character of the room she was entitled to, already granted from under another rule.
I worked with an experienced Judge on that decision and he pointed out to me (after quite a bit of Socratic learning on my part, and patience on his) that, in that particular situation, my referencing RRS 14 was unnecessary and I could get the same room for that boat without it.
So, I asked myself, "Would that always be the case?" ...
I started trying to invent and imagine scenarios where referring to RRS 14's obligations, within the room entitled by a separate rule, would be necessary. I don't think I've come-up with a solid scenario yet .. so I thought I'd put it out to the forum to see if folk out there can come up with one and get their input on if/how they have applied RRS 14's obligations into already-entitled room.
I'm not suggesting anything is wrong with the RRS 14 or "room" ... just trying to figure out the characteristics of scenarios to keep an eye out for in the future .. if they even exist.