A property data collection reveals damage the collector describes but does not evaluate. What follows for the appraiser?

Option A: The damage must be ignored as outside the data

Ignoring a reported condition inverts the appraiser's duty to analyze the property characteristics relevant to the assignment. Data does not become irrelevant because it arrived through a collector rather than through a personal visit; the report will still express an opinion about a property with that damage. Suppressing a known adverse condition also risks a misleading report, which the Ethics Rule prohibits.

Option C: The collector must return and estimate the repair

Sending the collector back to estimate repairs asks an unlicensed observer to perform appraisal analysis, which is the opposite of how the roles divide. A collector may be asked to gather more facts, such as additional photographs, measurements, or a clearer description of the extent of the damage, but not to opine on cost or value effect. Delegating the judgment would not relieve the appraiser of responsibility for it in any event.

Option D: The assignment must convert to a full inspection

No rule converts an assignment to a full inspection automatically when damage turns up. The scope of work is what is necessary to produce credible results for the intended use, so the appraiser decides whether the existing data suffices, whether more information is needed, or whether the assignment conditions can no longer be met. Sometimes an interior inspection is the right answer, but it is a scope-of-work decision, not an automatic consequence.