Report Review and Communication
Reviewing the report
A report review tests whether the written report communicates the analysis clearly enough for the intended user to understand it. Check:
- Identification - subject, client, intended use, intended users, effective date, and scope are stated.
- Clarity and consistency - narrative matches the numbers; assumptions and limiting conditions are appropriate and not used to excuse missing analysis.
- Support - data sources, verification, and reasoning are described.
- Certification - signed, dated, and consistent with the work performed.
Writing the review report
A good review report states the review's scope, summarizes the work reviewed, identifies any deficiencies with reasons, and gives the reviewer's opinion on adequacy and credibility. If the reviewer develops an independent value, that value and its support must be reported separately and clearly. Language should be precise and non-accusatory: describe the deficiency, not the appraiser's motives.
Traps
- Using boilerplate limiting conditions to cover up a substantive gap.
- Stating a conclusion without connecting it to the analysis reviewed.
- Writing an opinion that is ambiguous about whether the reviewer concurs, dissents, or offers a new value.
- Failing to state the review's scope, leaving the reader unsure what was verified.
Rule of thumb
A reader should be able to tell, from the review report alone, what was reviewed, how deeply, what was found, and what the reviewer concludes - in that order.
Worked example
A review finds that the original report's effective date precedes a major zoning change. The review should state the scope, identify the date issue, explain its effect on the value's relevance for the intended use, and clearly state whether the reviewer concurs with the original opinion.