How should a report handle a system the inspector suspects exists but could not locate?

There are three states a component can be in from the inspector's point of view — observed present, observed absent, and not located — and only the third is honest when a search has failed. Reporting a suspected but unfound system as absent asserts a negative the inspection did not establish, which can send a client to install something that already exists or to assume a protection is missing when it is not. Reporting it as present asserts an observation that was never made. Omitting it hides the open question entirely. Recording that it was not located does three useful things: it tells the client the question exists, it tells them the inspection did not answer it, and it lets them ask the seller directly, which is usually the fastest route to an answer.

Recording that the system was not located during the inspection states exactly what happened. It flags the open question for the client without asserting either presence or absence, neither of which was established.

Home inspections report on readily accessible, visually observable conditions. Standards require disclosure of areas and systems that could not be inspected, along with the reason, so the client understands the limits of what the report covers.

Not Found Is Its Own Answer. Present, absent, and not located are three different findings — never round the third into either of the others.

Say where you looked. 'No main water shutoff located; basement, crawl space and exterior were searched' is far more useful than the bare statement.

• •Converting a failed search into a finding of absence
• •Assuming presence because a system is normally required
• •Leaving the unresolved question out of the report