Too many measurements!

I'd would look at areas that are identical to reduce the amount of measurements first. I would say an approach of grouping similar areas would be acceptable. If its a flat roof and there are not any exterior objects that would block the skydome from any one skylight this could be simple. If its not a flat roof, then the distance from the floor to skylight and the angle and orientation of the skylight would require more work to show similarities to the reviewer.

700k sf at a 10-foot spacing is actually only (!) 7,000 so I just saved you 700 measurements right there... Are all 700k sf considered regularly occupied space? Most warehouse space is not. If you have an office space that is daylit within the warehouse, you can get the credit by just showing that the office space is the only regularly occupied space and that 75% of it complies. If it is considered regularly occupied, I could see an argument for something more like a 20' spacing. The addenda hint at using a spacing that is appropriate for the scale of your building. Might be worth a try. If you do, I would explain the repetitive nature of the building layout and assuming you have a high-bay ceiling, would explain that this type of ceiling produces a better max/min layout requiring less frequent measurement spacing.

I had recently made the final submittal for 138,00 sf manufacturing facility where I did do the 10 foot grid measurements, but only in areas that were considered regularly occupied but not in areas such as areas within the foot print of machinery and pallet racking. My submittal floor plan included these foot print areas. The reviewers did not question my measurement method but they did question my footcandle readings between 10 fc and 25 fc as they apparently were unaware of the foot candle range change in the daylighting addenda.

Based on your comment, i would question it too. You did measurements within a non-regularly occupied space, the area of machinery and pallets, and then submitted this for a review. The plans you submitted showed these areas as having machinery and pallet racks. So if i were the reviewer i would also question as to why and how measurements are being shown in areas that have this equipment. I don;t think it is so much about whether or not its the 10-25 fc change.

Is this a comment or a question? Why would you do measurements only in areas that are not regularly occupied? Did you do calculations/simulations for your other areas? And how did you take measurements inside of machinery? Are we misunderstanding your post? If they are unaware of the new footcandle range, which isn't entirely unheard of, there is an obvious and easy fix. Give them a copy of the addenda. You could also point out that you made a mistake and that these are non-regularly occupied spaces and should be ignored. You said this was the final submittal. Did they comment on your first submittal(s)? Interesting response from the reviewer.

I had a few typos in my initial comment which I corrected. My readings were in reguarly occupied areas that are physically occupied by employees and not by machinery. I did submit a copy of the addenda with the final submittal. Waiting to hear the final comments.

So they only questioned why you were considering 10 fc as your min, or were they questioning the values noted based on the location and its relation to glazing?

They were questioning the 10 fc minimum as I had some readings between 10 fc and 25 fc.

Probably got questioned if your registration date was before the addendum. If it benefits you, you can use it or you don;t have to.