Abstract
This study examines whether green building rating system architectures formally recognize functions associated with bio-inspired design. It compares the complete LEED v5 BD+C New Construction dataset (49 criteria; 110 points) and office-applicable BREEAM International New Construction V7 (51 issues; 165 standard credits). A Biomimetic Readiness Lens (BRL) provisionally regroups the eleven-domain Harmonized Sustainability Taxonomy into six interpretive dimensions. The mapping is deterministic and exploratory; it adds an interpretive synthesis beyond the underlying sustainability-domain results but is not independently validated and does not measure biological emulation, building performance, or design outcomes. Coverage, scoring incentives, minimum requirements, and qualitative localization are analyzed separately. Results show that resource-related criteria are prominent in both complete systems, while their credit allocation and minimum-standard structures differ. Independent recoding of all 100 items found complete agreement on primary HST domains and limited agreement on optional secondary codes; all 54 secondary differences were subsequently adjudicated under a source-based coding rule. The reconciled classifications retain 34 optional secondary assignments. The initial reliability estimates are reported separately from post-recoding adjudication. Document comparability and national source coverage also constrain interpretation. The BRL should be read as a provisional analytical crosswalk, not as a validated measure of biomimetic readiness.