Residential appraisal review the day the report arrives — photos, comparables and contract checked, questions drafted
Every appraisal reviewed the day it arrives, questions already drafted.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Software that helps a collateral underwriter decide whether an appraisal supports the value: comparable selection and adjustments, condition and quality against the photos, the contract against the report, property eligibility and the agency risk findings. Residential Appraisal Review adds six agents that do the reading and the arithmetic and draft the questions for the appraiser; the underwriter decides and signs off.
How to choose AI solutions for lending →
Updated
Every purchase or refinance with a full appraisal needs a collateral underwriter to decide whether the report supports the value. Are the comparable sales the right ones? Are the adjustments consistent and supported? Do the photos match the condition and quality ratings? Does the report agree with the purchase contract? Today that is done by hand, page by page, in a 30–45 page PDF — and then the reviewer writes the same revision requests by hand, week after week.
What gets missed is what comes back later: the same feature adjusted at two different rates, a comparable from across a school district line with no commentary, a seller credit in the addendum that never made the report, a living area the sketch does not support, water damage in a photo of a house rated C3. Collateral is one of the two biggest reasons loans are bought back. And from 2 November 2026, appraisals for loans sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must use the redesigned URAR with the UAD 3.6 dataset — a new layout that reviewers and their checklists were not built around.
Estimated split for an appraisal that needs a revision, reviewed by hand and with the solution. The appraiser’s time to answer does not change much; the reviewer’s days do.
Six specialist agents read every photo against the ratings, recompute the comparables, check the contract and draft the questions; the collateral underwriter signs off.
1418 Wrenfield Court, Westerville, Ohio: a purchase at 80% LTV, a $612,000 contract and a $615,000 value on the redesigned report. It arrives at 07:52 on a Monday. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Renata’s home screen is not a queue. It is the appraisal’s 32 photos, read against the ratings the value relies on — and the question “do the photos support the ratings?”. The report arrived at 07:52; every photo was read by 07:54. Agency risk score 3.8, redesigned report, 42 pages.
Condition C3: 26 photos support it, 2 contradict it.
The kitchen sink wall is framed in amber: “Water damage visible — appraisal rates condition C3”. The checker’s boxes show what it saw — brown staining on the ceiling above the sink, about 3 ft across (94%), and a swollen sink-base cabinet (88%). The report, on page 6, says “No adverse conditions observed.” Beside it: C3 as rated, C4 what the photo shows.
“The checker does not change the rating. It asks the appraiser — never for a rating or a value.”
Photo 16, the primary bath: caulk failed along the length of the tub (91%), two floor tiles lifted with the grout cracked (86%). On the sketch on page 18, this bath sits directly above the kitchen sink wall in photo 9. Renata presses “Ask the appraiser”, and the question is drafted as question 5.
Fourteen appraisals in the queue, six of them on the redesigned report. Four carry a risk score above 3.5 — no relief on value. Each is read the moment the management company delivers it and ranked by risk score and how long it has waited, with what the agents found already on the row: comparables 7–9 miles away, a C5 roof subject to repairs, a relocation sale.
Median time to review: 38 min from arrival — was 1 day 4 h in June.
One click and six agents work through 7 documents, from the 42-page report and its UAD 3.6 dataset (1,184 fields) to the agency findings and the purchase agreement. They recompute the grid, read the photos and measure the sketch: 2,412 sq ft against 2,486 reported — 74 sq ft, 3.0%, above the 2% tolerance. Twelve checks pass, among them licence active, ordered through the management company, grid arithmetic ties on all five comparables and flood zone X.
Comparables 2 and 4 are both C2 against a C3 subject. Comparable 2 takes −$5,000 for condition; comparable 4 takes −$20,000 — $15,000 apart for the same difference. Comparable 3, 409 Alder Mill Road, is 1.9 mi SE across the school district line, with $0 adjustment and no comment; six paired sales put the district premium at a median 2.4%, about $15,000.
Switch from “As reported” to “Consistent adjustments”. With one rate per difference and a district adjustment on comparable 3, the closed sales indicate $592,820 – $613,180, the listing and pending sale $590,580 and $609,780. The $615,000 value sits above all five. Below $612,000, LTV goes above 80%.
“The value is the appraiser’s to reconcile; the review asks for support.”
Line by line, the purchase agreement against the report. Addendum 2, signed 24 Sep 2026, gives the buyers a $12,000 seller credit toward closing costs; the report’s contract section shows $0 — “Not reported”. At 80% LTV it is within the 6% limit: a reporting question, not an eligibility one. Other valuations sit beside it, for context, never a substitute.
Condition adjustments on comparables 2 and 4, comparable 3 and the school district line, the seller credit in addendum 2, gross living area against the sketch, and the water damage in photos 9 and 16. Each cites its page and guideline — Selling Guide B4-1.3-08 and -09, ANSI Z765-2021 — and asks the appraiser to explain, support, correct or consider. Renata can edit or remove any of them.
Independence screen: “asks for support, no value or target” — on every question.
Renata signs off the review as revision required. The signature records her name and its meaning — “I reviewed this appraisal and its findings”. The five questions go to Lucia Ferraro at Northfield Valuation Services for Dana Whitlock, due Wed 14 Oct 17:00, and the collateral risk note is filed on loan TH-26-104882. Reviewed the day it arrived.
The same appraisal, seen by the four people who carry it — what their week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six specialist agents read every photo against the ratings, recompute the comparables, check the contract and draft the questions; the collateral underwriter signs off.
Reads the redesigned URAR with its UAD 3.6 dataset, and the legacy 1004, 1073 and 1025 forms — every field, photo and the sketch, with page references.
Checks comparable selection, dates, distance and neighbourhood; recomputes every adjustment; compares the rate for each feature across comparables; tests bracketing.
Reads the photos against the condition and quality ratings, measures the sketch, and runs property eligibility — property type, occupancy, flood zone, zoning, site, condition C5/C6.
Compares the purchase agreement and addenda with the report’s contract section; checks the sale and listing history and prior valuations.
Reads the agency risk score and messages and ties each one to its page in the report.
Drafts the questions to the appraiser with page and guideline, screens each for independence, and drafts the collateral risk note.
Signs off; manager reviews above 4.0. The agents propose; a named person decides.
The reviewer can ask in plain words — or say what to ask the appraiser. Every answer cites the page it rests on.
Why is comparable 2’s condition adjustment flagged?
Comparables 2 and 4 are both rated C2 against the subject’s C3. Comparable 2 takes −$5,000 for condition; comparable 4 takes −$20,000. The comments give no reason for the difference. With the same −$20,000, comparable 2 adjusts to $592,820. Question 1 asks the appraiser to explain or revise — it does not suggest a figure.
Does the value sit inside the adjusted comparables?
As reported, yes: the closed sales indicate $607,820 – $628,180 and the value is $615,000. With one rate per difference and a district adjustment on comparable 3, the closed sales indicate $592,820 – $613,180 and the value sits above all five. That is not a value of mine — it is why questions 1 and 2 matter. Below $612,000, LTV goes above 80%.
What did the contract say that the report missed?
Addendum 2, signed 24 September, gives the buyers a $12,000 seller credit toward closing costs. The report’s contract section says sales concessions are $0. At 80% LTV the credit is within the 6% limit, so it is a reporting question, not an eligibility one. It is question 3.
Add a question about the water damage in photos 9 and 16
Added as question 5. Photo 9 shows water staining on the kitchen ceiling above the sink and a swollen sink-base cabinet; photo 16 shows failed caulk and lifted tiles at the primary bath tub, directly above it on the sketch. The question asks for the cause, any active leak and whether C3 still holds — it suggests no rating and no value. It passed the independence screen.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Every appraisal is reviewed against these rules. Changes are versioned and on the audit trail.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Fast lane to one-click sign-off | Risk score 2.5 or lower, no findings | Set by score, in steps |
| Senior reviewer | Above 3.5 | Above 3.0 · 3.5 · 4.0 |
| Manager review | Above 4.0 | Above 4.0 · above 4.5 · every value question |
| Adjustment flags | Net 15% · gross 25% | Net 10% · gross 20% · Net 15% · gross 25% · Net 20% · gross 30% |
| Same feature, different rate | $5,000 or more | $2,500 · $5,000 · $10,000 or more |
| Distance flags | Urban 1 mi · suburban 3 mi · rural 10 mi | Urban 1 mi · suburban 3 mi · rural 10 mi, or urban 0.5 mi · suburban 2 mi · rural 5 mi |
| Living area against the sketch | Ask above 2% | Set by percent, in steps |
| Revision due | 2 business days | 1 · 2 · 3 business days |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample appraisals · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (Milliman Mortgage Repurchase Index 2026 Q1, Freddie Mac defect data — income and collateral more than half of repurchases; Freddie Mac UAD page — UAD 3.6 mandatory 2 Nov 2026). People, lenders, appraisers, management companies and properties named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Software that helps a collateral underwriter decide whether an appraisal supports the value: comparable selection and adjustments, condition and quality against the photos, the contract against the report, property eligibility and the agency risk findings. Residential Appraisal Review adds six agents that do the reading and the arithmetic and draft the questions for the appraiser; the underwriter decides and signs off.
Both. The condition and eligibility checker reads every photo against the condition and quality ratings and flags damage, staining or missing rooms the report does not mention. In the working solution it read 32 photos within two minutes of arrival and framed the two that contradict the C3 rating.
Yes. The appraisal report reader reads the redesigned URAR with its UAD 3.6 dataset and the legacy 1004, 1073 and 1025 forms in the same queue, with a page reference for every value. The appraiser panel shows which appraisers are already delivering the redesigned report.
No. The agents never state a value or ask for one. Every question passes an independence screen that blocks any question naming a value, a target or a preferred outcome, and questions go through the appraisal management company, never directly to the appraiser.
The comparable sales analyst recomputes the grid, flags distance, age and school district or neighbourhood lines, and compares the rate used for the same feature across comparables. It shows bracketing as reported and with consistent adjustments, clearly labelled as not the appraiser’s figures.
Yes. The collateral underwriter edits, removes or adds questions and signs off every review. Accepting a report with open findings needs a reason and a second reviewer, and high risk scores route to a senior reviewer or the Underwriting Manager.
Yes. Risk-score routing, adjustment flags, the same-feature rate difference, comparable age and distance, living-area tolerance, how C5 and C6 are handled, the management company and the revision due time are settings, versioned and on the audit trail.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements — your collateral policy, review flags, revision request wording and a sample of past appraisals — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own appraisals first.
An income worksheet in minutes, every figure traced to the return.
1-min demoMortgage Condition ManagementConditions cleared the day the document arrives, not days later.
1-min demoMortgage QC AutomationEvery loan reviewed before it is sold, not a sample after.
1-min demoWe’ll run Residential Appraisal Review on a sample of your own recent appraisals.