AI-GRS study plan

Define the reviewer's role and scope of work relative to the original appraiser's assignment

Distinguish the three review types (field, desk, and appraisal review) and identify when each applies

Outline the appraisal process steps a reviewer must reconstruct to test an opinion of value

List the three approaches to value and state the core data each requires

Apply the cost approach steps and identify common reviewer red flags in depreciation estimates

Apply the sales comparison approach and test comparables for comparability and adjustment support

Apply the income approach and check capitalization-rate derivation and income/expense reconciliation

Reconcile value indications and critique a reconciliation for logic and support

Compute and interpret key ratios (e.g., expense ratio, vacancy, DSCR) from a sample operating statement

Detect internal inconsistencies between highest and best use, approach selection, and final value

Evaluate the reviewer's tests for market data accuracy and reasonableness

Draft a defensible conclusion on whether the original value is credible

Map the review engagement to the applicable standards (competency, scope of work, development, reporting)

Identify the reviewer's obligations when the original work is deficient

Distinguish advocate, consultant, and review roles and the independence each requires

Apply the ethics rules to three scenario conflicts and justify each resolution

Write review findings that separate factual errors from judgment differences

Structure a review report with scope, analysis, and conclusions in required order

Apply professional communication standards to disagreement with the original appraiser

Draft clear, non-inflammatory language for adverse findings

Critique a peer's mock review report for clarity, support, and standards compliance

Revise your own report to close gaps found in peer critique

Test whether each finding is supported by evidence cited in the review

Verify that the review's scope of work matches the conclusions drawn

Integrate all four domains in a timed full-length practice review scenario

Diagnose weak domains from practice results and rank them by exam weight

Re-drill the two weakest domains with targeted scenario questions

Confirm command of standards and ethics rules under time pressure

Re-test the ranked weak areas and confirm improvement

Rehearse the full review workflow end-to-end without notes

Memorize the standards and ethics decision rules you missed most often

Finalize a one-page exam-day strategy covering pacing and question triage