EAc2.1 work

I am confused by your question... Can you elaborate on what you are thinking. There is a difference between Option 1 and 2 in EAc2.1 that is referenced in a comment lower down on this page - is that what you are referring to?

ok i think i've got it now. From what i understand the point is to almost work backwards with these credits and definitely think of them holistically. Let me see if I can explain: if you choose this credit, then you agree to a plan and the implementation of at least half of that plan before you hit the submit button. If you perform the entire process (2.1), make changes as a result (2.2), and then commission those changes then you are demonstrating compliance with all 3. Since this credit requires the planning for these Cx activities as an ongoing process, you'll want to use that process in when proving compliance with 2.1 - if you don't however and for instance have an outside agency simply write up a report for 2.1, you may have trouble proving that 50% threshold. hopefully that helps!

EAc2.3 (Existing Building Commissioning - Ongoing Commissioning) requires at least half the scope of the first ongoing commissioning cycle to be completed prior to the LEED application submission date. If Option 1, Commissioning Process compliance path is pursued under EAc2.1, the retrocommissioning work completed under EAc2.1 and its associated costs may be used to account for a percentage of this ongoing commissioning cost when considering this initial retrocommissioning as part of the first two-year ongoing commissioning cycle. However, the team must complete 100% of the retrocommissioning activities in order to achieve EAc2.1. The 50% threshold is based on the entire ongoing commissioning cycle cost (max. two years).