Where the judgement is applied, and where the signature happens

Mandates

What have we been instructed to do, and on what basis?

The instruction is a record rather than an email. Client, purpose, basis of value, the valuer responsible and the date it is due — captured once, because the purpose and the basis go on to decide which methods the valuation is allowed to conclude on.

• Purpose and basis are required, never defaulted — a valuation without a basis is refused at the door
• The mandate carries the due date, and the obligations attached to it carry theirs
• One client, many mandates; one mandate, many properties

The property and its documents

Can this property support the report we are being asked for?

Land and building details, area in whichever unit the record uses, and the evidence: registered instruments, the chain of title, encumbrance certificates and approvals with their validity. This screen is where the evidence gate stops being an abstraction — what is missing here is what will block the render.

• Documents uploaded, dated, attributed to an issuing authority and marked verified by a named person
• The title chain in order, each entry pointing at the instrument that evidences it
• Approvals with their expiry, and the ones lapsing within ninety days surfaced without being asked for
• What is missing shown as missing, rather than as an empty section that reads like a clean answer

Comparables on a map

Are these actually comparable to the subject?

The comparables plotted against the subject property, with distance, sale date and rate visible before any adjustment is entered. Seeing them on a map is the fastest way to notice that two of them are across a boundary that matters.

• Distance from the subject on every comparable, and the maximum radius shown as a limit rather than as advice
• Sale date and raw rate before adjustment, so the spread you are starting from is visible
• A comparable can be rejected with a recorded reason instead of being quietly deleted
• The map is loaded only on this screen, so nobody pays for it on the pages that do not use it

The adjustment grid

How does each comparable differ, and can I defend saying so?

The grid a reviewer will read, editable while you work. Each factor is its own column with its own percentage and its own rationale, and the adjusted rate updates from the engine rather than from the page. The sample adequacy check sits alongside it, so you find out that the spread is too wide while you can still do something about it.

• A rationale per adjustment, and the grid will not accept a percentage without one
• Adjusted rates and the spread between them, recomputed by the engine on every change
• The pre-adjustment sanity statistic shown as exactly that, and never as a conclusion
• The blocking conditions visible as you approach them, not announced when you try to conclude

Approaches and reconciliation

Which methods carry weight here, and why?

Sales comparison, income and cost side by side, each with its indicated value, against a bar showing the range they describe. Weights are entered with their reasons and must sum to one. Where the mandate’s purpose makes a method mandatory, that is stated on the screen rather than discovered on submission.

• Three indicated values shown as three, before any weighting collapses them
• A value range rather than a single figure, because the range is what a reviewer asks about
• Weights that do not sum to one are refused, and a weight with no rationale cannot be saved
• Divergence beyond the threshold is a refusal with the approaches named

Review notes

What did the reviewer object to, and has it been answered?

A note raised against a specific section or a specific comparable, assigned to somebody, answered, and closed. This is the mechanism the sign-off gate reads: a deliverable with an open note cannot be signed, so a note is a block rather than a comment.

• Notes anchored to a section or a comparable, not to the document in general
• Assigned, responded to and closed, with each step attributable to a person
• An analyst prepares, a valuer reviews, a partner or registered valuer signs
• Open notes are counted where the signature happens, not filed somewhere else

The deliverable and its provenance

Where did this number come from?

The finished report, and the ability to click any figure in it and walk down to the valuation line, the adjusted comparables and the source row. Click a statement about title and the registered instrument opens. This is the screen that makes the rest of the product checkable rather than merely careful.

• Every figure traceable to its line, its comparables and the sheet the sheet came from
• Every factual assertion traceable to a document a reviewer can open
• Exports as a document, a spreadsheet with the grid’s formulas intact, or structured data
• Unsigned exports carry a draft watermark, and the watermark fails closed

Filings, rent rolls and the portfolio

What is due, and what does the whole book look like?

The statutory calendar for the projects you are responsible for, rent rolls as of any date, and a roll-up across properties with concentration by tenant, city and asset class. The reconciliation screens run without a drafting model at all — their content is arithmetic, so it is computed rather than written.

• Obligations with real due dates for the state in question, and approvals before they lapse
• Weighted average unexpired lease term, expiry profile, vacancy and escalation as of a chosen date
• A rent roll whose total ties to the sum of its lines to the rupee
• Concentration by tenant, city and asset class, for the question a lender always asks second