I have received a review comment on MRpr1 that indicates that I only addressed "a portion" of the credit requirements for MRc1, 2 and 3 and need to address the full credit. I am confused. Since each of those credits requires compliance with only 1 of the possible attributes listed, why would I need to include in my policy dozens of bullet items of sustainable characteristics our building doesn't intend to pursue via purchasing? I thought the point was to customize the plan to reflect the types of purchases we actually intend to focus on, not everything that is possible in the reference manual for credit compliance.

To avoid including a whole bunch of sustainable characteristics that we don't intend to purchase for, I would have to delete things we are going to do because they aren't comprehensive. For example, I am inclined to delete references to purchases for Electric Powered equipment because I don't want to include references to Furniture. Both compliance paths can be pursued independently in MR2. So I could achieve MR2 by only purchasing appropriate electric powered equipment, but I can't achieve MRpr1 using MR2 unless I include both compliance paths?

This seems like a disincentive to me to include purchasing practices in the plan that we might actually want to pursue, in favor of just reiterating everything possible listed for the credit. Surely that can't be what the reviewer means. Can anyone help clarify?