Furniture blocking light/views?

I find there's some ambiguity in the LEED 2009 EBOM Reference Guide on this issue. Page 410 shows a diagram with a "permananent partition" for the Toplighting part of the requirements, but doesn't address furniture or movable partitions specifically in the sections on daylighting.

On page 415 bottom it says "movable furniture and partitions are included in the scope of this credit. See Figure 14." but my impression is that this only affects views calculations, since that what the rest of the paragraph and Figure 14 address. That impression is reinforced by finding this same paragraph in the 2009 BD&C Reference Guide for the Views credit EQc8.2 on page 567, but I couldn't find anything in the 2009 BD&C EQc8.1 credit language that addressed furniture or non-permanent partitions in regards to Daylighting calculations.

In NC v2.2, EQc8.1, Daylight, they did specifically exclude partitions and never mentioned systems furniture, so we never included those in our daylight calcs and drawings for 2.2 projects. In NC 2.2 EQc8.2 Views, "moveable partitions and furniture are not included in the scope of this credit calculation." so we didn't include them there, either.

It's understandable that NC wouldn't address furniture and movable partitions since that is typically outside the work scope of new construction.

One might assume that EBOM would address systems furniture and movable partitions, since that's a part of space planning and O&M, but it's not clear if that's the intent of the credit or if only permanent partitons are the issue (page 413 middle).

The 4-14-2010 Addenda added "MRc2.2 Sustainable Purchasing - Furniture" to the list of Related Credits, but didn't say more than that. Hopefully others may have gotten reviewer feedback on this or a hint of an Addenda to come.

I think this is an issue where the intent of the credit is paramount. EBOM simply wants to understand if a given occupant (in their workspace) is enjoying the benefits of views/daylight. If furniture, movable partitions, etc... interferes with that in such a way as to eliminate the view or to reduce the amount of daylight provided, the space probably doesn't meet the intent, regardless of the original design or other factors. With views this may be a bit easier to ascertain that daylight, but both should keep the ultimate delivery of the benefit in mind.

There's another clue in the EBOM 2009 Reference Guide in addition to those David reviewed: In the Implementation section, 'Views', it states:

"Consider utilizing opportunities created by churn to incorporate greater access to views. With an existing building, creating building management specifications for future space upgrades and _systems furniture purchases_ that incorporate views will increase the likelihood of credit achievement in future certification endeavors." (p. 414, emphasis added)