"detailing and code compliance can be as much a part of design (as creative act) as the preliminary design phase of a project. probably more important really" - jump

absolutely and it should be. though i would drop the 'more important' since that sounds a bit silly. furthermore, detailing a design still falls within the scope of design though most firms deem this as an excercise in supplementing their scheme with a religious set of catalogued standards, virtually sterilizing their designs. save time, save money, much tested.
the schematics of the detail might even precede the schematics of the greater architecture: mies, pawson, scarpa, grimshaw...insert. however, the experience i'm gaining is also telling me that many of the buildings churned out are pronounced creatively dead from the get go...let alone their details.

i find vado's monochromatic rendering of the 'reality' of practice disturbing. no, this is not 'reality'; his is a chosen and reductive sieving of a greater compexity. i know very well how much time is spent coordinating with the mechanical/electrical/structural facets...but this is the effective (and not so effective) technical sieve and hardly the ideological noise vado makes it out to be.

in any case, if someone lives in a concrete mixer, then of course s/he will regurgitate cement.

you are failing your slump test.