Why does a report benefit from describing the property's basic characteristics before the findings?

A description of the property anchors everything that follows. Stating the building type, approximate age, foundation type, storeys, orientation and the conditions on the day tells the reader which building the findings belong to and gives them the context that makes individual observations legible — a finding about a crawl space means nothing if the reader thinks the house is slab-on-grade. It also matters for the report's life beyond the transaction: reports get forwarded, filed and read years later, sometimes alongside reports on other properties, and the description is what keeps them from being confused. It supports the inspector too, since a dispute about what was inspected is answered by a report that identifies the property and its characteristics plainly.

The description establishes which building the findings describe and supplies the context that makes individual observations interpretable, both at the time and whenever the report is read later.

Inspection reports commonly open with a description of the property — type, approximate age, foundation and structure type, occupancy status and conditions at the time — before presenting observations, so findings are read in context.

Say Which House. A finding about a crawl space is confusing in a report the reader thinks describes a slab.

Include conditions on the day — weather, occupancy, whether utilities were on. They explain why certain observations were or were not possible.

• •Omitting the description and starting with findings
• •Treating photographs as a substitute for property context
• •Leaving out conditions on the day of inspection