How to Audit Draft Reports Before Submission

A draft can look complete at 5pm and still contain a figure from an earlier calculation, a lease event that has not carried through, or comparable evidence that contradicts the adopted value. Knowing how to audit draft reports is not about redoing the valuation. It is a structured final review that tests whether the report says, calculates and supports what you intend it to say.

The risk is rarely one obvious error. It is the small disconnect between sections written at different points in the instruction. A market rent of £185 per sq m in the narrative may sit beside a calculation using £175 per sq m. The conclusion may state a market value of £2,450,000 while the executive summary still says £2,400,000. Either point is readily corrected. Neither reflects weak valuation judgement. Both can prompt a lender query, delay issue and make the report harder to defend.

Start the audit with the instruction

Before reading the draft, reopen the instruction and make a short review sheet. Capture the valuation date, purpose, basis of value, interest to be valued, reporting date, borrower or client requirements, and any lender-specific conditions. This gives the review a fixed reference point.

It also prevents a common problem: reviewing the report against what you remember being asked to do rather than what the instruction actually requires. If the client requires a stated marketing period, an EWS1 disclosure or a minimum number of comparable transactions, these are not minor presentation points. They need to be addressed clearly in the final report.

Read the scope and assumptions first. Check that the inspection date, valuation date and report date are correct and consistent. Then confirm that the tenure, occupancy position, title assumptions and special assumptions have been carried through accurately. A report describing a vacant unit in one section and an occupied unit elsewhere creates uncertainty before the reader reaches the valuation.

Test the report as one document

A good audit is not a proofread. It should move across the report, following the facts that matter. Pick out the core data points and trace each one from the executive summary through the property description, tenancy schedule, valuation rationale and conclusion.

For a let industrial unit, that might mean checking the net internal area, passing rent, lease expiry, break options, rent review dates, tenant name, adopted market rent, yield and capital value. The purpose is to find contradictions, not merely typographical mistakes.

For example, a report may correctly state a 12,500 sq ft area in the description but use 11,950 sq ft in the market rent calculation. At an adopted rent of £20 per sq ft, the difference is £11,000 per annum. Depending on the yield and assumptions, that can produce a material difference in value. The arithmetic may be correct on both pages. The report is still internally inconsistent.

How to audit draft reports for figures and calculations

The numerical review should begin with the figures that drive the conclusion, rather than every number on every page. Recalculate the valuation independently from the stated inputs. Then work backwards to confirm those inputs are evidenced and consistently stated.

Check units with particular care. Reports often contain a mix of sq ft, sq m, hectares, acres, annual rents, monthly rents and capital rates. A conversion error may be obvious in a spreadsheet but less visible once the output has been written into narrative. Similarly, check whether a stated yield is equivalent, net initial or reversionary, and whether the wording aligns with the calculation.

Where comparable evidence is adjusted, make sure the direction and amount of each adjustment makes sense in the context of the commentary. A comparable at £210 per sq m may be adjusted down to £195 per sq m because it is newer, better specified and benefits from a longer unexpired term. If the written analysis says the subject is superior, the adjustment needs another look.

Use a deliberate sequence:

• reconcile the final capital value in the conclusion, summary, calculations and any covering wording;
• test rent multiplied by area, then capitalised income against the stated yield;
• check that rounding has not created a different headline figure in another section;
• compare the stated percentage changes, void periods and incentives with the supporting calculations.

A £50,000 mismatch between the valuation summary and the signed conclusion is not always material to the opinion of value. It is material to the credibility of the document. The reader should never be left deciding which figure is intended.

Review the evidence, not just the conclusion

Comparable evidence is where the report demonstrates the reasoning behind the opinion. The audit should ask whether each comparable has enough information to support the use being made of it, and whether the narrative explains the differences that matter.

Check transaction dates, prices, rents, floor areas, analysed rates, tenure and source information. Where evidence is old, thin or from a different sub-market, the report should make the limitation clear and explain the weight attached to it. There is no universal minimum number of comparables that makes a valuation sound. It depends on the asset, market and instruction. But if the client has stipulated a threshold, the report must meet it or explain why it cannot.

The same approach applies to tenant covenant statements. If the report describes the tenant as financially strong, ensure that this is supported by a current and appropriately qualified statement. Avoid carrying forward a historic description where the available evidence is now more limited or the tenant entity has changed.

For investment valuations, trace the unexpired term through every relevant section. A lease expiry in June 2031, a tenant break in June 2028 and a rent review in June 2026 are different events with different effects. A draft that compresses them into “five years unexpired” may be technically misleading, even if the capital value is unchanged.

Read for omissions that change interpretation

Some issues do not appear as a wrong figure. They appear as an absent qualification. Check that material matters identified during inspection, due diligence or market analysis have not fallen out during drafting.

For higher-rise residential property, if an EWS1 form or related façade information is relevant to marketability, the report should deal with it in the right place and in terms consistent with the information available. It should not imply that a form exists, or that no issue arises, if neither conclusion is supported.

Likewise, a stated marketing period should be consistent with the evidence and assumptions. If the report assumes a three-month disposal period but the local market commentary describes limited demand and prolonged exposure, explain the judgement. The issue is not that a short period is automatically wrong. It is whether the conclusion follows from the analysis.

Separate factual checks from professional judgement

The most efficient review distinguishes between checks that can be tested mechanically and matters requiring valuation judgement. Cross-referencing dates, names, areas, rents, values and lease terms is repetitive work. The valuer's time is better spent considering whether the comparable selection is appropriate, whether an adjustment is justified and whether the final opinion remains reasonable in the current market.

That distinction is useful when deciding where a document audit tool fits. WriteUp can review a draft in one to two minutes and flag figures that do not reconcile, inconsistent lease terms, missing requirements and report-wide contradictions. It is a second pair of eyes, built around the checks that are difficult to complete consistently when the report is long and deadlines are tight.

It does not determine market value or decide whether an assumption is appropriate. Each finding remains for the surveyor to assess, accept or reject. For firms handling confidential reports, the practical safeguards matter too: processing should be private and encrypted, with no report data retained or used to train models.

Leave time for a final clean read

Once the technical audit is complete, read the report as the lender or client will read it. Start with the executive summary and conclusion, then move through the rationale. Does the route from facts to evidence to opinion make sense without the reader having to resolve contradictions?

If possible, put the draft aside before this last read. Even a short gap helps you spot wording that has become familiar through repetition. Focus on defined terms, headings, property addresses, entity names and qualifications. These details frame the report and deserve the same care as the valuation calculation.

A final audit will not remove the need for experienced professional judgement. It gives that judgement a cleaner document to stand behind, before the report leaves your desk.