Part of an attic cannot be reached because of low clearance beyond the access. What should the report record?

Limitations are findings, and reporting them precisely is what lets a client understand the shape of what they bought. The useful record has two parts: how far the inspection actually got, and where and why it stopped. That specificity matters because it tells the client which portion of the attic remains an open question, and it lets a future inspector or contractor pick up from a known boundary. It also protects the inspector, since a later problem in the unreached area is addressed by a report that stated plainly it was not viewed. The failure modes on either side are both familiar: overstating coverage by implying the whole attic was seen, and understating it by declaring attics excluded, which discards the portion that was successfully inspected.

The report records the extent that was actually viewed and identifies where and why access stopped. That tells the client precisely which portion remains uninspected and leaves a defined boundary for anyone following up.

Standards of practice require inspectors to inspect readily accessible areas and to report areas not inspected together with the reason. Low clearance, insulation depth, stored belongings and lack of safe footing are common attic access limitations.

How Far You Got and Where You Stopped. Two facts, both required. Claiming everything and claiming nothing are equally wrong.

Be geographic about it — 'viewed from the hatch to the second truss bay; clearance under 24 inches beyond' is far more useful than 'attic partially inspected'.

• •Implying full coverage from a partial view
• •Presuming unreached areas match what was seen
• •Declaring an entire system excluded when part of it was inspected