An appraiser has finished all three approaches and now rechecks the calculations, data and premises of each one before weighing the indications. How does this review step relate to reconciliation?
Correct Answer
A) It is not reconciliation itself, but it provides the basis for reconciliation.
Reviewing the appraisal is not reconciliation, but it provides a basis for it: all previous work and analysis is checked and verified before the indications are weighed. The weighing of the indications is the reconciliation itself. Close agreement among indications does not make the review optional or replace reconciliation, since agreeing indications can share the same error.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
Option A is correct because reviewing the appraisal checks and verifies all previous work, which gives reconciliation a sound basis. The review itself does not weigh the indications or produce the final value.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option B: It is the reconciliation, because checking the data sets the final weights.
Option B calls the review the reconciliation because checking data sets the weights. Checking data is preparation; weighing the indications by appropriateness, accuracy and quantity of data is a separate step.
Option C: It is optional once the indications fall within a narrow range of value.
Option C makes the review optional once the indications fall within a narrow range. Indications can agree and still share an error, such as a wrong premise or a calculation mistake, so the check is still needed.
Option D: It replaces reconciliation when the indications already agree closely.
Option D says the review replaces reconciliation when indications agree closely. Even agreeing indications must be evaluated and explained, so the review cannot stand in for reconciliation.
Check first, then weigh
The review checks the work; reconciliation weighs the results. One prepares for the other.
How to use: Use this when a question asks what happens before or during reconciliation.
Exam Tip
Separate checking the work from weighing the indications; the review supports reconciliation but is not the same step.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Treating the data review as the reconciliation itself
- -Skipping the review because the indications are close together
- -Assuming agreeing indications need no further evaluation
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
This question tests the definition of the review step and how it differs from reconciliation. The review checks the work; reconciliation weighs the checked indications to reach a final value. Both are needed, and the review comes first.
Background Knowledge
Reconciliation is often presented in three parts: reviewing the appraisal, applying reconciliation criteria, and reaching and presenting the final value. The review rechecks the appraisal problem, calculations and the consistency of data across approaches. Reconciliation then weighs the verified indications.
Real-World Application
Before writing the reconciliation, an appraiser rechecks the sales grid arithmetic and finds a transposed figure in one adjustment. After correcting it, the appraiser weighs the revised indications and writes the reconciliation comment.
More Reconciliation Questions
In a cost approach for an improved property, an appraiser estimates site value by sales comparison, allocation and extraction, then settles on one site-value figure before final reconciliation. How is this step best described?
An extraordinary assumption was reasonably supported, properly used and disclosed in an appraisal report. Later, the assumed information is found to be false. Which conclusion is best supported?
An otherwise applicable valuation approach cannot be developed reliably from the available data. The remaining scope can produce credible assignment results. What should the appraiser do?
May an appraiser use a hypothetical condition in any assignment?
An appraisal has a current effective date and permits an extraordinary assumption if its requirements are met. Which situation involves uncertain information rather than a fact known to be contrary to reality on that date?
Why must a report identify any real property interest that is being excluded from the value opinion?
Which review best helps explain divergent cost, sales-comparison and income indications?
Two value indications are $340,000 and $392,000. What is the difference as a percentage of the lower indication, rounded to one decimal place?
An unauthorized third party requests a lender-client’s report. No due-process or other permitted disclosure exception applies. How should the appraiser respond?
An appraiser proposes to assume there are no hidden defects. Which fact would characterize that assumption as extraordinary under the USPAP 2024 definition, rather than justify dismissing it as routine boilerplate?
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
Previous Question
While reviewing a sales grid before reconciliation, an appraiser sees that a comparable built 15 years before the subject received an age adjustment and also a condition adjustment for the same worn finishes and dated systems that account for the age gap. What problem does this review reveal?
Next Question
When the intended use and applicable assignment requirements permit a value range, what can a supported range communicate?