Will the current materials approach hurt LEED?

My short answer is “Yes, the current approach to the materials credits is hurting LEED.” Now that I’ve got people’s blood up, let me explain. The changes from the fourth to fifth comment draft of LEED on energy and water prerequisites, which were the areas of most concern for me during the 4th comment period, have been pushed into the barest reaches of acceptable. However, I think the current approach to materials is a train wreck waiting to happen. I say ‘train wreck’ NOT because of the substance and direction, both of which I think USGBC has correct. Rather, I believe that the problems will be in terms of administering the system and in terms of market uptake. If I'm not mistaken, it is the (warranted) wholesale change of the materials section that is principally driving the excessively long (in my opinion) overlap between V4 and V3. As I have noted in other comments, I believe that fear of losing all credit in the materials categories—even if it is a perceived loss—will keep people locked into V3 until the bitter end of the sunset. If people stay with V3 because of the wholly new materials credits—on top of everything else—then we will have lost out on all of the other V4 benefits: 100% of nothing is nothing. If the USGBC simply allowed a bit of "backwards compatibility"—just like any smart software company would do—for materials credits, I believe that the whole process could be accelerated significantly. By backwards compatibility, I mean that the current LEED credits – perhaps with a threshold tweak or two – would continue to be creditable in version 4, but at some fraction, say 50%, of the point credit given in version 3. This allows projects a "pressure relief valve" to begin using V4 and all of the other improvements and increased requirements without having to do everything different at once. What this might look like: EPD, Option 3—1 point for Recycled content -- 30% by value Sourcing, Option 3—1 point for regional materials – 30% by value