Red-team an appraisal for credibility gaps. Surface, never re-appraise
Rung 8 of 10 · Red-team audit
1 · Learn the move · Red-team audit
Reviewing an appraisal is not re-appraising it. The move is a red-team audit: read the report against USPAP credibility, unsupported adjustments, an undisclosed extraordinary or hypothetical assumption, a scope of work that doesn't match the assignment, a value conclusion the analysis doesn't carry. And QUOTE each finding from the report's own language before you flag it. What you never do is invent a defect, state your own opinion of value, or claim 'the value is off by $X.' You flag that SUPPORT is missing and route resolution to the appraiser or a review appraiser. This isn't Standard 3 work product itself, it's a structured gap list. Every finding cites the report; anything you can't quote, you don't assert. Surface the issue, name the standard it touches, request the missing support, and stop.
Review this appraisal and tell me if the value is right. [paste excerpts]
2 · Your turn. You write the prompt
A First Harbor Bank analyst pastes three excerpts from an appraisal on a mixed-use property: (1) '+15% location adjustment applied to each comparable' with no stated support; (2) 'value assumes stabilized occupancy of 92%' with no label identifying it as an extraordinary assumption; (3) 'final reconciliation gives primary weight to the income approach' with no reason stated for the weighting. The analyst wants a credibility red-team before the report goes to committee. Issues surfaced and routed, not a re-valuation. Write the prompt.
Remember: the AI sees only your prompt, not this page. If the situation isn't in your prompt, it doesn't exist.
Optional. These shape the output when you run your prompt below, not your score.