Which statement correctly describes client and other intended-user identification in written real-property appraisal reports under USPAP 2024 SR 2-2(a) and (b)?

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?