And yet we have well-built bridges in real life that have collapsed despite being inspected and having no dangerous flaws found (until after they collapsed). This is more conservative than that.
But if we use that as a guideline, then the inspector(s) would be of no use. What you're saying is, they failed. :p Yes, bridges and structures sometimes fail, but what percentage? Due to what factors? Weather is a huge factor in real life. Is the game going to start calculating stress on platforms and beams due to expansion and contraction from heat and cold? Damage from water-flow and wind?
People usually don't see degradation over time. These things are always a surprise. A freak weather event, a mistake in the initial construction/design or an accident (eg. a ship collides with a support) and suddenly the whole thing falls apart.
I would agree that architecture in the game could use some work and this suggestion brings up some useful places to start looking at it. It's also good to be willing to revise the whole idea (as you have suggested, you might). However, we also have to ask how this improves the fun and quality of the gaming experience. That's where I start to see trouble here. It gets extremely complex if it's to be realistic and that doesn't necessarily make it fun.
I think Footkerchief's suggestion of identifying stress points seems more likely. Otherwise, perhaps the 'inspector' could just be another function of an architect? The question is: do we really want bridges/structures collapsing and how do we balance that, if we do?
People already have fun with fire (as I understand). Now, if only we could control fire and cook / forge things with it.