No: work to the architect or engineer's satisfaction is judged by that person's own standard, but the power is not unfettered, because the architect or engineer must act fairly and impartially and cannot demand standards higher than the specification, as Sutcliffe v Thackrah requires, and a dissatisfied contractor can refer the matter to adjudication or arbitration

No. Work to the architect's or engineer's satisfaction is judged by that person's own standard, with a strong element of personal judgment and no definition in the forms, but the power to reject is not unfettered. The architect or engineer must act in a fair and unbiased manner, as the House of Lords held in Sutcliffe v Thackrah, which also rejected any immunity and imposed a duty of care, and cannot demand standards higher than the specification requires. A dissatisfied contractor can refer the decision to adjudication under the Construction Act, or to an arbitrator with power to open up, review and revise the architect's opinion. Two points refine this: in Cotton v Wallis a low price was treated as a factor allowing lower standards where the architect had not required defects corrected; and although the ICE 7th Edition refers to satisfaction without the word reasonable, a court would imply that the engineer must act reasonably, so there is little practical difference between satisfaction and reasonable satisfaction.