A seller's disclosure mentions a repair the inspector did not observe evidence of. How should this be handled?

A seller's disclosure and an inspection report are two different kinds of document, and the inspector's obligation is to keep them distinct. The disclosure records what the seller says was done; the report records what the inspector observed. When the two do not line up, there are several innocent explanations — the repair may be concealed behind finishes, it may have been performed in an area the inspection could not access, or the disclosure may describe it imprecisely — alongside the less innocent possibility that it was not done. The inspector cannot distinguish these from a visual inspection, so the honest treatment is to record both facts side by side: the disclosure says X, and the inspection observed Y, or observed nothing bearing on X. That gives the client an accurate basis for asking the seller a specific question, which is the useful outcome.

The report notes what the disclosure states alongside what the inspection did and did not observe. That preserves the distinction between the seller's representation and the inspector's observation, and it equips the client to ask a specific follow-up question.

Home inspectors report on observed conditions. Seller disclosures are separate representations by a party to the transaction, and inspectors neither verify nor refute them, but may note discrepancies between what was disclosed and what was observed.

Two Documents, Two Voices. The seller says; you saw. Write both, join neither, and let the client ask the question.

Say explicitly what could not be observed and why — concealed behind finishes, inaccessible, no access panel. That framing is what makes the note useful rather than accusatory.

• •Certifying a repair as complete without observing it
• •Declaring the seller's disclosure inaccurate
• •Leaving a known discrepancy out of the report entirely