Reduced Mercury in Lamps ID-credit

What I've seen in my 2009 projects that pursued this credit has been pretty consistent. We had already documented the effort via the EBOM materials like you describe, and submitted that (usually before we were aware that it had been officially moved to the Innovation Catalog). Those responses fussed at us for not using the updated criteria, and required us to transfer info to the updated version tools and requirements and resubmit. For my projects, compliance with the lower threshold (it's now 35 pg, not 70 like before) has not yet been an issue, since they've all been mostly or entirely LED, and end up way below the required threshold max. The now-required tenant sales agreement is annoying to say the least, especially since many CS projects don't have tenants engaged yet when this credit is submitted. To save everyone's (yours and the reviewers) time and effort, I recommend that you go ahead and use the Innovation Catalog requirements. https://www.usgbc.org/node/5318467?return=/credits/core-and-shell/v2009/innovation-catalog
There is a newer calculator available under the "Resources" button, but there is no form like before. Similar to many other v4 credits, GBCI created an offline tool to do actual calcs rather than have it on a template. Like before, you will not be expected to fill out all sections of the calculator, since they will not all apply to a CS project like they would for EBOM. If you need to buy a little more time and your whole submission is waiting on this item, you could submit the calculator, cut sheets, etc. without the lease agreement part, knowing that it will come back as a comment. That way, you could at least be working on attaining the signed versions in the meantime.

Hi Maria,  On the webpage provided above, there's a lightly outlined box around text that states "To earn innovation credit, projects must meet the exemplary performance threshold noted above." We formerly had to submit cut sheets for equivalent fluorescent (or other standard) fixtures to prove that the LEDs selected were, indeed, more efficient than their popular counterparts; in short, we couldn't just assume that b/c they were LED, they were better. That's probably why it's stuck in your head. As for your strategy, if you need to submit sooner than later, you could always take your approach to keep things rolling, see what the reviewers come back with, and adjust for the resubmission or defer the resubmission until the construction phase, basically putting the ID credit on pause between phases. Only downside to that, is that you'll still only get the one chance after initial submission to either edit the credit, or drop it and pursue a different one.

Regarding this matter, I too am working on a Core&Shell project and I am pursuing the O+M v4 Purchasing-Lamp credit as an ID credit.  When I take a look at an offline template of the LEED Online form for this credit under O+M v4, it doesn't mention anywhere to upload a Lamp Purchasing Plan but to upload only the purchasing calculator.  That was a requirement under the O+M v2009 LEED Online form, along with the purchasing calculator.  Could I then just upload the purchasing calculator for my project, along with cutsheets of fluorescent counterparts that are less efficient, and skip the Lamp Purchasing Plan?