Something like this does NOT mean anything if included with other AND conditions:
OR (FieldX <> 'A',
FieldX <> 'B'
)
Why? Because its always going to return true regardless of what FieldX value is. If the value of FieldX happens to be 'A' its true because then FieldX <> 'B'. If the value of FieldX happens to be 'B' its true because then FieldX <> 'A'. If the value of FieldX happens to be 'Z' (or anything else) its true because then FieldX <> 'A'.
OK so don't do that - Im beggin.
Maybe you really want NEITHER value A or B here? (Thats what I think when I see code like this anyway.) In that case you want to say:
AND (FieldX <> 'A',
FieldX <> 'B'
)
Although if you had this condition inside another AND condition group, as supposed in my first sentence, then just use:
FieldX <> 'A',
FieldX <> 'B'
Generally speaking this construct is excessive and more complicated for no reason:
AND(AND(condition1, condition2), condition3)
Simplify to: AND(condition1, condition2, condition3)
Generally speaking this construct is excessive and more complicated for no reason:
AND(AND(condition1, condition2), condition3)
Simplify to: AND(condition1, condition2, condition3)
For the developer who needs to expand on a rule it can continue to get more complex so keep it as tight and clean as possible to begin with.