But the requirement is to give leadership to a project. The project can have two parts, the bridge (not completed for reasons out of his control) and the wall (which was completed). Not sure why he wouldn't include both. There's nothing in the workbook or other BSA docs that I can find that would preclude doing this, so why not include them?
They key principle here (and in your subsequent Workbook reference) is that the scout continues to deal with the same beneficiary.
Fred's candidate ditched the 1st beneficiary (or they ditched him), along with the 1st project. So, the 2nd beneficiary, when they sign off, is really only acknowledging the plans and modifications and completion of the 2nd project.
Is that enough of a difference to not include project #1's hours in the calculations? I have no clue. Honestly, I'd take my cue from my district's advancement committee ... knowing full well that the next district over might be directing some other scout to do the opposite.
Also from your non-highlighted quote of workbook:
"... or he may decide —if he believes his completed project worthy and in compliance—to complete his Eagle Scout Rank Application and submit his project workbook without final approval. ..."
It speaks volumes about the scout that he didn't push to submit project #1 and all its troubles unsigned with his Eagle application. He clearly wanted to accomplish something. So, I think that should be discussed at the BoR. That discussion might be a good moment of reflection for the boy and the leaders in the room. But ... does adding the 1st project's hours to the total on the Eagle application "for statistical purposes only" do anything for him? The unit? The district/council?
If it doesn't, isn't this one of those "keep the BS out of the BS of A" moments?
Edited by qwazse, 14 March 2017 - 12:21 PM.