Here's a quote from the Forward of ASME Section VIII Division 1:
"The Committee recognizes that tools and techniques used for design and analysis change as technology progresses and expects engineers to use good judgement in the application of these tools. The designer is responsible for complying with Code rules and demonstrating compliance with Code equations when such equations are mandatory. The Code neither requires nor prohibits the use of computers for the design or analysis of components constructed to the requirements of the Code. However, designers and engineers using computer programs for design or analysis are cautioned that they are responsible for all technical assumptions inherent in the programs they use and they are responsible for the application of these programs to their design."

So there you have it. Now, this is not a piping code but it is a pressure vessel code - we're in the same business trying to keep high energy systems safe.

Here's how I see things:

There are three components to a computer analysis: 1)Concept, 2)Program Input, & 3)Program Results. The designer/engineer uses Concept and creates Input and the software vendor uses Input and creates Results. Of course we make mistakes on the vendor side, that's why we issue Builds. But where do you think the majority of problems occur? It's between Concept and Input. And, yes, making input easier makes it easier to produce bad numbers.

A parallel discussion can be had on the status of the piping Codes - they are currently focused on slide rule calculation. B31.3 is slowly pulling in current analysis techniques (e.g. Appendices P & S) but I wonder when this tectonic shift between existing Code rules and advancing analytical technology will quake the earth.

A final thought: The purchase of CAESAR II provides a tool. A purchase of CAESAR II is not a purchase of knowledge. But now I think I'm preaching to the choir...