# Worked Example — Inspection Report Decoder

A gold-standard run of this skill: a 52-finding report on a 1987 house, triaged down to the two findings that matter, with the ask-list that doesn't spend dollar-credibility on nickel items.

## The brief

Dana and Marcus are under contract at $412,000 on a 1987 single-family in a mildly cooling market (one other offer existed). Their inspection report landed with 52 findings in identical alarmed formatting, including: "evidence of past moisture staining at northeast basement corner, efflorescence present, hairline step-cracking in block foundation wall"; "roof covering at or near end of serviceable life, no active leaks observed" (architectural shingles, seller's disclosure says installed 2005); "Federal Pacific Electric panel observed — recommend evaluation by licensed electrician"; "multiple GFCI receptacles absent at kitchen/bath"; plus ~46 items of caulk, grading touch-ups, a sticking door, and worn weatherstripping. Objection deadline: 6 days out. They plan to stay 10+ years; savings after closing will be thin. The sellers already priced the house "below comps for condition."

## The output

### Inspection Decode: 1987 single-family — objection deadline: [6 days]

**The one-paragraph verdict:** Negotiate hard, with one specialist gate. Two findings carry essentially all the money: the Federal Pacific panel (a known-hazard panel type electricians routinely recommend replacing — this is a genuine ask) and a roof at end of design life (real money, but 20-year-old shingles are pricing information on a 1987 house sold "below comps for condition" — a soft ask at best). The basement corner needs a structural/drainage opinion *inside the objection window* before you can classify it; hairline step-cracking with efflorescence is very often minor water management, occasionally not. The other 48 findings are Saturday mornings.

**Triage table**

| Finding (report §) | Plain English | Cost range | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| FPE panel (§7.2) | Panel brand with a documented failure history; insurers sometimes balk | low-to-mid thousands; more if service upgrade needed — electrician quote required | 🔴 |
| Basement corner (§3.1) | Past water + minor block cracking — usually drainage, sometimes structural | $0 (gutters/grading) to five figures if structural — specialist opinion required | 🔴 until classified |
| Roof age (§2.1) | ~20-yr-old shingles near design life, no active leaks | five figures for replacement; driver is size/pitch/layers — roofer quote | 🟡 |
| Missing GFCIs (§7.4) | Modern-code safety outlets absent (house predates requirement) | low hundreds, often bundled into panel work | 🟡 (bundle) |
| Items 5–52 | Caulk, grading touch-ups, weatherstripping, sticking door | under ~$1,500 total, DIY-heavy | 🟢 |

**🚩 The money findings** — FPE panel: replacement is the standard recommendation regardless of current function; the driver is whether the service entrance also needs upgrading — get the electrician's quote in writing before the deadline. Basement corner: the range is unquotable until a structural engineer or drainage specialist looks; booking that visit is this week's only urgent errand. Roof: real but age-priced; the honest ask is a partial credit, not a replacement.

**The seller list** — ranked by leverage: (1) **Credit for panel replacement** at the quoted amount — "the electrician's evaluation recommends replacement; we're asking for a credit of [quote] rather than asking you to manage the work." (2) **Contingent on the §3.1 specialist read** — if structural: renegotiate or walk; if drainage: fold into (3). (3) **A modest roof/general credit** — "given roof age and the balance of findings, we're asking [modest figure], and we'll take the house as-is otherwise." Nothing else goes on the list — 48 caulk lines would cost credibility the panel ask needs.

**Ask your inspector** — (1) "Off the record: does the basement corner worry you, or is this CYA language?" (2) "Was the step-cracking accompanied by any displacement or bowing?" (3) "Did the panel show heat marks or just the brand-name flag?" (4) "Which three findings would *you* fix first if you bought it?"

**Budget reality** — year-one likely spend buying as-is with credits applied: panel work if credited, ~$1,000–1,500 of 🟢 items, and a roof fund started at ~$150–250/month against a replacement inside 5 years.

*"This is a plain-language reading, not a professional inspection, engineering, or legal opinion — cost ranges are regional estimates; get specialist quotes for anything load-bearing before your objection deadline."*

## Why it's shaped this way

- **52 findings became 4 + a pile**, because the skill's core claim is that forty equal alarms equal zero alarms — the triage *is* the product, and the 🟢 pile is dismissed in one row with a total instead of forty rows of noise.
- **The big five got found first** — foundation (§3.1), roof, electrical are three of the framework's big five; the report's flat formatting had buried the FPE panel at item 31, between GFCIs and weatherstripping.
- **The basement corner is "🔴 until classified," not priced** — the framework forbids false-precision points, and a finding whose range spans $0-to-five-figures is exactly the specialist-quote flag case; the *only* deadline-urgent action in the whole decode is booking that visit.
- **The roof is decoded as pricing information, not a gotcha** — age vs. defect, per framework rule 3: a 20-year roof on a house sold "below comps for condition" is partially in the price already, so it gets a soft credit ask instead of a replacement demand.
- **Credits beat repairs in every ask** — per the framework, the seller's rushed contractor is nobody's friend, and the wording says credit explicitly.
- **The ask-list has three items, not fifteen** — the anti-pattern warns that nickel lists cost credibility on the dollar items; the caulk stays home.
- **The verdict hands the walk decision back** — it names the walk-risk (structural branch of §3.1) and prices everything else, but per the anti-patterns it never says "walk" or "buy" for them.
- **The inspector questions chase verbal candor** — "off the record, does this worry you?" — because written reports are defensive documents and the framework says the frank answers are verbal.