A reviewer is asked to determine whether a report's data is accurate. The reviewer's scope of work should:
Correct Answer
D) Be identified and disclosed in the review report
Why this is correct: The governing concept is that a review is a separate appraisal service with its own scope-of-work obligation under USPAP. The reviewer must identify what they examined, what they independently verified, and what they accepted from the original report. This scope must be disclosed in the review report so users can understand the basis and weight of the reviewer's conclusions. Why the other choices are wrong: "Remain confidential to protect the review's integrity" is wrong because USPAP requires disclosure of the scope of work to ensure transparency. "Match the original appraiser's scope exactly" is wrong because a reviewer's scope is independent and may differ based on the review's purpose. "Be determined solely by the client's budget" is wrong because while budget is a factor, the scope must be sufficient to produce credible results, not dictated solely by cost. Exam tip: For any review assignment, remember the three-part disclosure: what you examined, what you verified, and what you accepted. It's a core USPAP requirement.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option D states the requirement: the review scope of work must be identified and disclosed in the review report. Disclosure lets the client and other intended users calibrate how much the review conclusion supports, which is the entire purpose of the requirement. It also protects the reviewer, because a clearly stated scope shows what was and was not undertaken if the conclusion is later challenged. Determining and disclosing scope are two halves of the same obligation.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A: Remain confidential to protect the review's integrity
Confidentiality under the Ethics Rule protects confidential information about the client and assignment results from unauthorized disclosure to third parties; it says nothing about hiding the scope of work from the intended users of the review report. Withholding scope from the very people relying on the review would defeat the transparency the standards require. The option misapplies a real obligation to a context where it does not operate.
Option B: Match the original appraiser's scope exactly
The reviewer's scope is determined by the review problem, not copied from the original assignment, and the two frequently differ by design. A desk review deliberately does less than the original appraisal, while a review that develops an independent value opinion may do more. Requiring an exact match would make most reviews either impossible or pointlessly duplicative.
Option C: Be determined solely by the client's budget
A client's budget is a real constraint on what can be undertaken, and a reviewer may legitimately accept a limited assignment, but the scope must still be sufficient for credible results and must be disclosed. If the budget cannot support a credible review for the intended use, the correct response is to decline or to renegotiate, not to perform an inadequate review quietly. Cost can shape the assignment; it cannot excuse an incredible one.
Examined, Verified, Accepted
Three words describe every review scope: examined, verified, accepted. What did you look at, what did you independently confirm, and what did you take on faith from the report. Write all three into the review and the reader knows exactly how much your conclusion is worth.
How to use: For review scope questions, choose the option requiring identification and disclosure. Reject options that conceal the scope, mirror the original appraiser's scope, or let a budget dictate it. Then remember that the accepted-without-verification category must be stated explicitly, since silence implies verification that did not occur.
Exam Tip
Say plainly in the review what you did not do; unstated limitations are the most common way a review report becomes misleading.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Failing to state which data were accepted from the report without independent verification
- -Implying a field inspection occurred when only a desk review was performed
- -Accepting a budget-limited engagement that cannot produce credible review results
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
This question tests the reviewer's own scope of work obligation. A review is an appraisal service in its own right, so the reviewer must determine a scope of work sufficient to produce credible review results and must disclose it, exactly as an appraiser must for a valuation assignment. Reviews vary enormously in depth: some are desk reviews limited to reading the report and checking internal consistency, others add independent verification of the comparable sales, others include a field inspection of the subject and the comparables, and some go further and develop the reviewer's own opinion of value. Each level supports a different weight of conclusion, and a reader who does not know which level was performed cannot judge how much the review conclusion is worth. Disclosure therefore has three practical parts: what the reviewer examined, what the reviewer independently verified, and what the reviewer accepted from the report without verification. The last of those is easy to omit and often the most important, since a reviewer who accepted the original appraiser's measurements and comparable data has not confirmed them and should not be read as having done so.
Background Knowledge
You need to know that USPAP's scope of work obligations apply to review assignments as they do to valuation assignments, requiring the reviewer to identify the problem, determine and perform a sufficient scope, and disclose it. You should also know the common levels of review, from desk review through field review to a review that includes the reviewer's own opinion of value, and that each level must be described accurately rather than implied.
Real-World Application
Engaged for a desk review, a reviewer reads the report, re-pulls the three comparables from MLS and public records, and does not inspect the subject or the comparables. The review report states each of those points, notes that the subject's condition rating was accepted as reported, and confines its conclusions to what that scope supports.
More USPAP Questions
Which statement best defines a hypothetical condition under USPAP?
According to the Competency Rule, if an appraiser lacks the knowledge and experience to complete an assignment competently, which action is NOT acceptable?
An appraiser runs only the sales comparison approach on a standard tract home and omits the cost and income approaches. Under Standard 1 this is:
A value opinion for a subdivision as if fully built out two years from now is what kind of assignment, and what does it require?
A hypothetical condition differs from an extraordinary assumption in that a hypothetical condition:
An appraiser must disclose in the certification whether they have:
A client-imposed requirement — 'use only comps from our approved list' — is best described as:
Under Standard 1, when developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must:
The certification required by Standards Rule 2-3 must be signed by:
According to Standard 1, when developing an opinion of market value, an appraiser must analyze:
People Also Study
Real Estate Market
13.6% of exam
Property Description
11.8% of exam
Land or Site Valuation
4.5% of exam
Sales Comparison Approach
16.4% of exam
Cost Approach
13.6% of exam