PFP fan allowance in Table 1.4

Yes I'am referring to the updated version of table 1.4. Thanks for making it very clear, now the exhaust fan is on a riser and connected to all floors, while the systems are one system/floor, can I attached the exhaust fan power to any of the systems and add a narrative. Also can I do the same in table 1.4.7 A or not, knowing that these fans exhaust Toilets, Smoking zones, and copy Rooms. As for Fan Energy it is clear that I do not need to enter the PFP fan power separately, but that check (statement) in table 1.4.6 doesn't give me more allowance although the PFP system consume more fan energy. My problem is that the basecase simulation results gives higher fan energy than table 1.4.7 allowed fan energy, so is there any advice how can I manage to comply?

What about table 1.4.7A, can I insert the exhaust fans to it, in other words: am I allowed to model exhaust fans in basecase? knowing that these fans exhaust toilets, smoking zones, and copy rooms

I just need more clarification, does that mean that I don't insert the basecase exhaust rate (cfm) in these zones to the Basecase Energy Model?, nor the basecase exhaust kw/cfm to the Basecase Energy Model? and what about the Table 1.4.7A exhaust cell, should I leave it as zero?

Dear Marcus, Referring to my original question I'am confused about something. The reviewer's comment was that: "The interior fan demand reported in Table EAp2-4 for the Baseline case exceeds the Baseline fan power allowance reported in the Supplemental Table 1.4". Knowing that the values entered to Table EAp2-4 are enduse values generated by the simulation tool, Knowing that I changed Table 14 System from VAV with pfp to VAV with reheat to find that fan power allowance didn't decrease; meaning that the table isn't counting for the zones' PFP powers; Should I supply a narrative explaining that the PFP fan powers did cause this increase, or there is a certain check that I'am missing?

Marcus, thanks for your reply, I re-posted my questing thinking that my reply here won't reach you. Yes I'am replying to the preliminary review comments, and I didn't change the system, i did this trial just to test the excel file (table 1.4.7A) response to system type. However I think I found it now; your reply of " system the fan demand should be significantly less than the total fan power in Table 1.4.7A" made me go back to the energy model output, to notice that I'am using the "NonCoincident enduse KW" value from my simulation tool's output; while the "Coincident enduse KW" is about half the value. should I go on using the "Coincident KW" for all enduse values?

Thank you Marcus.