I think you'll be able to tell I love doing this stuff, even if most of it is merely academic and doesn't change real use figures much. So I've thrown out a lot of figures since you gave a lot, just extra knowledge if desired.

So first separate the results of the BIA and it's potential inaccuracy and what it gives you (BF% & LBM only) from the RMR test and what it gives you (calories no matter weight).
You can compare what calculated from one would mean compared to the other, like they did kind of.
Say for this BF% range, what would be the calculated RMR, compared to your tested RMR.
Or for your RMR, what would be the expected BF%, compared to your tested figure.

Very valid RMR test, good prep if that was actually stated by them or you did it anyway. This is obviously not the group that shows up in a mall with a metabolic cart doing mass tests for $25 (and totally invalid for a meaningful figure). That kind of care means they likely calibrate their machine often.

The BIA though, huh, can be within 5% of truth IF you have normal hydration levels in the body - not sodium retained or dehydrated. Then it comes down to how do you confirm that? Well totally can't, but no exercise prior as you did, normal meals, normal drinking levels. But that's why it's many times given as 10% range. And just fine for consistency doing the test often and getting a direction of up or down.

Biggest problem though, what was true weight, not clothed weight, on that day, or now?
That's needed for the comparison calc's, and to backward check their results. There hasn't been any changes to the assumed values and methods for doing this through the years, merely what is measured, and the tables used.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/fatbia.htm

Basically taking their results with inflated weight, figuring out the TBW and then Resistance, then doing the calc again with real weight. You give enough stats otherwise I can do that, just need true non-clothed weight.
Was the BIA done with connections at hands and feet, feet only, hands only, ect?

So that's trying to get best results on the part of the test with biggest potential for inaccuracy.

To current stats (using the spreadsheet on my profile page) which will change a tad based on real weight:

A tested RMR of 1930 taken back to Katch BMR would be 1774. Any sites that ask for BMR, that's what you want to use.
So think about current TDEE estimate, what BMR was used and what value was it?

Now, an RMR of 1930 and using the Cunningham RMR calc would result in a BF of 10%, or LBM of 90% of true weight.
So if you used a TDEE site where you could enter BF%, you'd have to use 10% for them to use the same BMR as tested gave.

Now, to the other test, using that tested BF 26.8%, and since hopefully 5% accurate, range of 21.8 - 31.8% (though you may know you aren't near the 22 side, and therefore the 5% above is more realistic direction. 5% accurate doesn't mean your figure is in the middle).

So LBM of 125.1 to 109.1.
Cunningham RMR for that LBM would be 1749 to 1589.

So yep, your measured RMR 1930 is well above what would be expected for even your best potential BFof 21.8% of 1749, indeed 10% over at best, or 16% better than the 26.8%.
Their 25% better figure probably came from BMR/RMR based on age, weight, height, gender, not BF%.

To be clear, your RMR being 1930 means you would burn that daily being awake non-moving, just like during your test.
Throw in daily moving and exercise and eating, you'll burn a lot more than that.

And true, no low metabolism there. Though that doesn't speak to if your body is slowing down daily activities to compensate.
And true, best test is the 2 weeks eating 250 daily more than estimated TDEE to confirm.

Now, the realistic part here that is individual and mainly untestable - your genetics and body state could mean a fast adapting metabolism, and your body's level where too much stress causes that to start may be low or high.
Meaning your stress of daily life, lack of sleep, food sensitivities, type of exercise frequency/intensity, and putting a diet on top, the amount of deficit could push stress level high enough body starts adapting by slowing down overall metabolism.
Your body could take a lot, could take little. Could adapt fast, could adapt slow.

I will suggest, merely for tracking and seeing the figures, if you can use the spreadsheet, do so. Simple Setup and Progress tabs are only 2 needed.
Once you enter your measurements and get an average BF% based on just the 2 calcs (don't enter the BIA results yet), take that BIA result divided by average measured calc to find your correction factor. Example, 26.8 / 28.1 = 0.95. Enter that right above the cell where you enter your own BF% in to. If you can retain LBM, that will be correct for a while hopefully as things change.
Now put your BIA test in the field where it says Body comp scale. At some point it of course won't be correct, like 5 lbs lighter take it out. Then base new BF% stat on measurement calculated BF x correction factor.

Do enter your RMR 1930 in that field available, it will be used for basis of calculations since it's higher.
Another stat that would be useful, since RMR is based on LBM, and that may change slightly.
Take RMR / LBM shown above to get your RMR per lb of LBM, and note that figure right above the RMR field. Now as LBM will eventually drop, you can recalc what a better estimated RMR would be based on new LBM.

Then use rest of it as normal with Activity Calc. See how that TDEE compares now to what you are eating at reset.
Use Progress tab to record current results and date.

Sorry so long, this was interesting test and while so many think they have slower than normal metabolism, I'm surprised how many have great tests like this. And while the result is so much higher than perhaps expected, I'm betting some of that is on inaccuracy of BF% measurement.