The inspector finds 1960s two-prong ungrounded receptacles working properly throughout an original-condition house. The right frame for the report is:

Two-prong ungrounded receptacles in an original-condition mid-century house were compliant when installed and remain functional, so the report's job is explanation rather than accusation. What the client needs to understand is what the missing equipment ground actually costs them: no fault path for appliances with metal enclosures, no protection for surge suppressors that rely on a ground reference, and a limitation on what can safely be plugged in. They also need the options, which are real and graduated — GFCI protection permits replacement with grounded-type receptacles marked 'no equipment ground', individual circuits can be run where grounding matters most, or the house can be rewired. Framing it as an original-era limitation with upgrade paths gives the client an accurate picture and a decision to make, which is exactly what a report should produce.

The wiring was compliant when installed and functions, so the report explains the limitation an ungrounded system imposes and sets out the upgrade options. That gives the client an accurate basis for deciding what, if anything, to do.

Two-wire ungrounded branch circuits were standard before equipment grounding became required. Recognized options today include GFCI protection with receptacles marked 'no equipment ground', running new grounded circuits, or rewiring.

Compliant Then, Limited Now. Not a violation, not nothing — a real limitation with real options. Explain all three.

Watch for the misuse: a three-prong receptacle installed on an ungrounded circuit without GFCI protection and without the required marking. That is a genuine defect and is very commonly found.

• •Reporting era-appropriate wiring as a code violation
• •Dismissing the limitation as cosmetic
• •Missing three-prong receptacles improperly installed on ungrounded circuits