Different code but it's probably similar to your code. But I disagree with your interpretation. I complied with the section you posted since my HPWC, with the switches set to 40 amps, meets the rating. Now, with the dip switches set to 80 amps it does not meet the rating. That's why my electrician said it technically meets the code. It's not as black and white as you think it is by reference to the code wording itself that you posted. There is a strong argument to make that if the code was meant to apply to devices capable of exceeding 50 amps, then it would read that way. With the dips set at 40 amps it is rated at 40 amps. It is the intent of the legislation that must be met. If you can show you have complied with the intent of the code, then that does not mean you have breached the code. If you take apart a UMC, and HPWC correctly wired to a plug and set to 40 amps, I highly doubt any Electrical Engineer would tell you that you are safer with the UMC.
And isn't that the intent of the Electrical Code, being safety? You need to tell me why I am not safer than a UMC. I really would like to hear it because I don't want to put my family at risk. Saying breach of code doesn't tell me I'm not better off because I am not running the HPWC at 80 amps. That would be insane.
I'm not so sure the code is open to that particular interpretation.
625.5 Listed. All electrical materials, devices, fittings, and associated equipment shall be listed.
Ignoring any other portion of section 625, putting a 14-50 plug on a HPWC is already a violation of the code because it is not listed for this.
The above and my excerpt of 625.44 are just two places the HPWC violates. Let's go with another.
625.17 Cords and Cables.
(A) Power-Supply Cord. The cable for cord-connected equipment shall comply with all of the following:
(1) Be any of the types specified in 625.17(B) or hard service cord, junior hard service cord, or portable power cable types in accordance with Table 400.4. Hard service cord, junior hard service cord, or portable power cable types shall be listed, as applicable, for exposure to oil and damp and wet locations.
(2) Have an ampacity as specified in Table 400.5(A)(1) or, for 8 AWG and larger, in the 60°C columns of Table 400.5(A)(2).
(3) Have an overall length as specified in 625.17(A)(3)a or b as follows:
a. When the interrupting device of the personnel protection system specified in 625.22 is located within the enclosure of the supply equipment or charging system, the power-supply cord shall be not more than 300 mm (12 in.) long,
b. When the interrupting device of the personnel protection system specified in 625.22 is located at the attachment plug, or within the first 300 mm (12 in.) of the power-supply cord, the overall cord length shall be a minimum of 1.8 m (6 ft) and shall be not greater than 4.6 m (15 ft).
So, ignoring that it's not listed for this in the first place, if the length of your cord and plug is > 12" (pretty likely) than you're in violation of 625.17(A)(3)(a) since the GFCI protection device is located inside the HPWC and you're increasing the possibility that under a fault condition the HPWC would not cut power as it should. Notice how short the supply side cable is on the UMC? It's because of 625.17(A)(3)(a) and 625.22 (see below).
Lets also jump to 625.17 part C
625.17(C) Overall Cord and Cable Length.
The overall usable length shall not exceed 7.5 m (25 ft) unless equipped with a cable management system that is part of the listed electric vehicle supply equipment.
Another section about this:
625.22 Personnel Protection System.
The electric vehicle supply equipment shall have
a listed system of protection against electric shock of personnel.
Where cord-and plug connected electric vehicle supply equipment is used, the interrupting device of a listed personnel protection system shall be provided and shall be an integral part of the attachment plug or shall be located in the power-supply cord not more than 300 mm (12 in.) from the attachment plug.
The cable on the HPWC is 25'. So, when you add another cable, you instantly violate 625.17(C) if it is not fastened in place permanently. 625.17(C)(2) allows the 25' cable + 12" of connection cord for a listed device if it is fastened in place.
Another part of the code violated:
625.42 Disconnecting Means.
For electric vehicle supply equipment
rated more than 60 amperes or more than 150 volts to ground, the disconnecting means shall be provided and installed in a readily accessible location. The disconnecting means shall be lockable open in accordance with 110.25.
The HPWC is rated for 80A on a 100A breaker per the continuous load requirement, regardless of whether you set some dip switches or not. While I'm sure you could convince an inspector against a disconnect if using it at 40A.... the code is still there. However the purpose of this provision is partly because the conductors and such in equipment like the HPWC are capable of causing a much heavier load under a fault condition. For example, the dip switch setting doesn't apply when you short out the output conductors... which are rated for an 80A continuous load....
Basically, hard wiring the HPWC or using the 14-50+UMC doesn't violate any codes. Just do it right, folks.