Review Theory and Practice
What review is
Review is a risk-management and quality-control process applied to another appraiser's work. The reviewer does not re-appraise by default; the reviewer determines whether the work is adequately supported, credible, and compliant with applicable standards. Distinguish three products candidates routinely confuse:
- Administrative/technical review - checks completeness, math, internal consistency, and form compliance. No new opinion of value.
- Appraisal review - forms an opinion about the quality of another's work and the credibility of its conclusions; may or may not include the reviewer's own value opinion.
- Reappraisal / review with concurrence - the reviewer independently develops value and states agreement or disagreement.
Know the reviewer's scope options: field review versus desk review, and the difference between reviewing the report and reviewing the underlying workfile.
Competence and independence
A reviewer must be competent in the property type, market, and methodology involved, and must be independent of the original assignment's pressures. The reviewer must not simply substitute personal judgment for the appraiser's reasonable judgment; the test is whether the appraiser's choice was supported and reasonable, not whether the reviewer would have done it differently.
Traps
- Assuming a review requires a new value conclusion - it does not unless the engagement says so.
- Treating a disagreement with a comparable selection as a standards violation.
- Confusing the reviewer's duty to the client with a duty to "fix" the report.
- Ignoring that the reviewer may need to disclose prior involvement with the property.
Rule of thumb
Review the logic chain: data → adjustments → reconciliation → final opinion. If any link is unsupported, state the effect on credibility rather than silently reworking the numbers. Document the scope of review and the extent of data verification in the review report.
Worked example
An appraiser uses one comparable 40% above the subject's indicated value and gives it 60% weight. A reviewer should not merely reweight; the reviewer should test whether the appraiser explained and supported that weighting. If not, the credibility of the final opinion is impaired and the reviewer says so, with reasons.