If a reviewer's assignment does not need a new value conclusion, how should they conclude their report?

In cases where a reviewer's assignment does not require deriving a new value conclusion, the reviewer should articulate that the appraisal's conclusions are appropriate. This approach acknowledges that the original appraisal has met the necessary criteria for valuation, showing that it withstands scrutiny based on the data and the methods used to arrive at the value.

Stating agreement with the original conclusions adds credibility to the appraisal and indicates that it aligns with industry standards and practices. This position reassures stakeholders that the findings of the appraisal are reliable and can be used confidently in decision-making.

Other options suggest varying levels of disagreement or qualifications that may introduce ambiguity. Claiming no agreement would dismiss the appraisal entirely, and expressing partial agreement may lead to confusion about which aspects are acceptable and which are not. This could undermine the entire appraisal's integrity and could complicate the review process. Therefore, clearly indicating that the appraisal's conclusions are appropriate maintains clarity and supports the integrity of the appraisal process.