Five samples · every request, address, company and number is invented
Five revision requests, and the replies Stip drafted.
Each sample shows the request as it arrived, the appraiser's own notes, and the drafted reply, item by item. Every fact in a draft comes from the request or the notes. Gaps are flagged for the appraiser and the value box stays hatched.
Sample 1 · Why these comps, distance, a dated sale, sales not used
Comparable selection
Sample. The request, property, AMC, people and figures below are invented to show the kind of draft Stip produces. They are not from a real assignment. The subject address is replaced with [subject], as we ask you to do. Comparable addresses stay.
The revision request, as received
From: Review Desk, Sample Valuation Services (AMC) Loan: SAMPLE-1001 Subject: [subject], Sampleton, TX 75000 Revision request #1. Please address all items and return within 24 hours. 1. Comparable 2 is located 1.38 miles from the subject. Neighborhood boundaries indicate a 1 mile radius. Please explain why closer sales were not utilized. 2. Comparable 3 closed more than 6 months prior to the effective date. Please comment on the use of a dated sale and whether a market conditions (time) adjustment is warranted. 3. Comparable 1 is located on the opposite side of State Hwy 121. Please comment on any locational differences. 4. Please provide sales considered but not used and the reason each was excluded.
The appraiser's notes, as typed
- Subject: 2,940 sq ft two-story, built 2004, inground pool, backs to greenbelt, 0.31 acre.
- Search: 12 months, 1 mile, 2,400 to 3,400 sq ft, two-story. 7 closed sales. 3 used, 4 excluded.
- Comp 2: Hawthorne Ridge, same school district and builder, built 2006. Only recent sale with a greenbelt lot. Location commentary on page 9.
- Comp 3: closed 9 months before effective date. Market section (page 3): median sale price +0.8% over 12 months, months of supply steady at 2.6. No time adjustment. Comp 3 is the only other two-story with a pool in the search.
- Comp 1: across SH 121 but same district and same elementary school. Already discussed on page 9. Two pairs in workfile showed no measurable difference across 121 for this price range.
- Excluded: 1123 Brookhollow Dr (REO, sold as-is, roof damage per MLS); 77 Sundance Ln (one-story); 902 Wren Way (new construction, $25,000 builder concessions); 1540 Oak Bend (one-story, 2,410 sq ft).
Opening lineThank you for the review. Responses to each item are below. An addendum with the same commentary has been added to the report.
1
Condition: Comparable 2 is located 1.38 miles from the subject. Neighborhood boundaries indicate a 1 mile radius. Please explain why closer sales were not utilized.
Group: Answered, p. 9
Drafted response: Comparable 2 distance (1.38 miles). The search covered all closed sales within 1 mile of the subject over the past 12 months with 2,400 to 3,400 sq ft of finished area above grade in two-story homes. Seven sales met those criteria. Four were excluded for the reasons listed in item 4. Comparable 2 was extended to 1.38 miles because it is the only recent sale with a greenbelt lot, which the subject also has. It is in the same school district, by the same builder, and two years newer than the subject. Location commentary for Comparable 2 is on page 9.
2
Condition: Comparable 3 closed more than 6 months prior to the effective date. Please comment on the use of a dated sale and whether a market conditions (time) adjustment is warranted.
Group: Answered, p. 3
Drafted response: Comparable 3 sale date (9 months). Market conditions are analyzed on page 3. Over the 12 months before the effective date the median sale price changed by +0.8% and months of supply held steady at 2.6. Based on this data no market conditions adjustment was applied. Comparable 3 was retained because it is the only other two-story sale with an inground pool in the search area.
3
Condition: Comparable 1 is located on the opposite side of State Hwy 121. Please comment on any locational differences.
Group: Answered, p. 9
Drafted response: Comparable 1 location (opposite side of SH 121). Comparable 1 is in the same school district and attendance zone as the subject. Paired sales in the workfile did not show a measurable price difference between homes on either side of SH 121 in this price range, so no location adjustment was applied. This is also discussed on page 9.
4
Condition: Please provide sales considered but not used and the reason each was excluded.
Group: Needs your input
Drafted response: Sales considered but not used.
| Address | Reason not used |
|---|---|
| 1123 Brookhollow Dr | REO sale, sold as-is with roof damage noted in MLS |
| 77 Sundance Ln | One-story design |
| 902 Wren Way | New construction with $25,000 in builder concessions |
| 1540 Oak Bend | One-story design |
Closing, from your notesNo change to the comparables, adjustments or opinion of value resulted from this request. [APPRAISER: confirm the last sentence reflects your conclusion before sending.]
Items4
Answered3
Quick fix0
Your input1
Appraiser only0
Flags1
Appraiser signature
State certification #
Date of response
What the draft did not do
- It did not add, remove or reorder comparables.
- It did not suggest a time adjustment. It reported the appraiser's own market data and the appraiser's decision.
- It did not state or defend the value figure. The closing line is flagged for the appraiser to confirm.
Sample 2 · Support for area, pool, garage and condition adjustments
Adjustment support
Sample. The request, property, AMC, people and figures below are invented to show the kind of draft Stip produces. They are not from a real assignment. The subject address is replaced with [subject], as we ask you to do. Comparable addresses stay.
The revision request, as received
From: Underwriting conditions, Sample Home Lending (via AMC portal) Loan: SAMPLE-2002 Subject: [subject], Sampleton, FL 33000 Prior to approval, the appraiser must address: a) Provide support for the gross living area adjustment of $40 per sq ft. b) Provide support for the $15,000 pool adjustment. c) Provide support for the $5,000 adjustment for the 3-car vs 2-car garage. d) Comparable 3 received a $20,000 condition adjustment (C4 vs C3). Please explain how this was derived. e) Net adjustments on Comparable 3 are 18%. Please comment.
The appraiser's notes, as typed
- Area adjustment: regression on 38 closed sales in the market area (12 months), coefficient about $43 per sq ft; paired sales 2 pairs at $37 and $41. Used $40. Workfile has the data.
- Pool: 2 paired sales, $12,000 and $18,000. Depreciated cost of a 15 year old pool roughly $14,000 to $16,000. Used $15,000.
- Garage: 2 pairs in the subdivision, both around $5,000.
- Comp 3 condition: original 1998 kitchen and baths per MLS photos and agent comments. Subject fully updated 2023. Two pairs of similar homes differing in update level: $18,000 and $24,000. Used $20,000.
- Comp 3 net 18%: kept because it is the only sale on the same street; given least weight (15%); reconciliation on page 11 says so.
Opening lineThank you. Support for each adjustment is below. The same explanation has been added to the adjustments addendum.
a
Condition: Provide support for the gross living area adjustment of $40 per sq ft.
Group: Needs your input
Drafted response: Area adjustment ($40 per sq ft of finished area above grade). A regression of 38 closed sales in the market area over the prior 12 months indicated about $43 per sq ft. Two paired sales indicated $37 and $41 per sq ft. $40 per sq ft was applied as reasonably supported by both methods. The data is retained in the workfile.
b
Condition: Provide support for the $15,000 pool adjustment.
Group: Needs your input
Drafted response: Pool ($15,000). Two paired sales indicated contributions of $12,000 and $18,000. A depreciated cost estimate for a pool of similar age ranged from about $14,000 to $16,000. $15,000 is within both indications.
c
Condition: Provide support for the $5,000 adjustment for the 3-car vs 2-car garage.
Group: Needs your input
Drafted response: Garage, 3-car vs 2-car ($5,000). Two paired sales within the subject subdivision each indicated about $5,000.
d
Condition: Comparable 3 received a $20,000 condition adjustment (C4 vs C3). Please explain how this was derived.
Group: Needs your input
Drafted response: Comparable 3 condition ($20,000, C4 vs C3). MLS photos and agent remarks show Comparable 3 had its original 1998 kitchen and baths at the time of sale. The subject's kitchen and baths were fully updated in 2023. Two paired sales of similar homes differing mainly in update level indicated $18,000 and $24,000. $20,000 was applied.
e
Condition: Net adjustments on Comparable 3 are 18%. Please comment.
Group: Answered, p. 11
Drafted response: Comparable 3 net adjustment (18%). Comparable 3 is the only recent sale on the subject's street and was retained for that reason. Because of its higher adjustments it was given the least weight (15%) in reconciliation, as stated on page 11.
Closing, from your notesNo adjustment amounts or the opinion of value were changed in response to this request. [APPRAISER: confirm before sending.]
Items5
Answered1
Quick fix0
Your input4
Appraiser only0
Flags1
Appraiser signature
State certification #
Date of response
What the draft did not do
- It did not propose different adjustment amounts or a different method.
- It used only the figures the appraiser supplied. Where the notes gave a range, the draft repeated the range and did not invent precision.
- It did not argue that the lender's question was unreasonable.
Sample 3 · Clerical mismatches, a missed contract amendment, a license date
Typos and data-field mismatches
Sample. The request, property, AMC, people and figures below are invented to show the kind of draft Stip produces. They are not from a real assignment. The subject address is replaced with [subject], as we ask you to do. Comparable addresses stay.
The revision request, as received
From: Quality Control, Sample Appraisal Management Co. Loan: SAMPLE-3003 Subject: [subject], Sampleton, CA 95000 The following items require correction: 1. Year built is 1987 in the Subject section but 1978 in the sales grid. 2. Bath count is 2.1 in the Subject section and 2.0 in the sales grid. 3. Contract price is $412,000. The purchase agreement in our file shows $415,000 per amendment dated 09/30. Please reconcile. 4. Zoning classification field is blank. 5. The photo for Comparable 2 shows house number 1407. Comparable 2 is 1417. 6. Appraiser license expiration date shows 2025.
The appraiser's notes, as typed
- Year built: 1978 is right (county record and original permit). Fix page 1.
- Baths: 2 full + 1 half. Grid was wrong. Now 2.1 in both.
- Contract: I never received the 09/30 amendment. Received it today from the AMC. Price $415,000, no other terms changed, no concessions. Analysis added. No change to my opinion of value.
- Zoning: R-1 (single family residential), per city zoning map.
- Comp 2 photo: wrong MLS photo uploaded. Replaced with the correct front photo of 1417.
- License: renewed, now expires 11/2027. Updated.
Opening lineThank you for catching these. All six items have been corrected or addressed, and the revised report is attached.
1
Condition: Year built is 1987 in the Subject section but 1978 in the sales grid.
Group: Quick fix
Drafted response: Corrected to 1978 in the Subject section, matching the sales grid. 1978 is confirmed by county records and the original building permit.
2
Condition: Bath count is 2.1 in the Subject section and 2.0 in the sales grid.
Group: Quick fix
Drafted response: The subject has 2 full baths and 1 half bath. The sales grid has been corrected to 2.1.
3
Condition: Contract price is $412,000. The purchase agreement in our file shows $415,000 per amendment dated 09/30. Please reconcile.
Group: Needs your input
Drafted response: The 09/30 amendment was not in the appraiser's original assignment package. It has now been received and analyzed. The contract section reflects the amended price of $415,000. No other terms changed and no concessions were noted. The amendment did not change the opinion of value. [APPRAISER: confirm item 3 reflects your conclusion before sending.]
4
Condition: Zoning classification field is blank.
Group: Quick fix
Drafted response: Completed as R-1 (single-family residential), per the city zoning map.
5
Condition: The photo for Comparable 2 shows house number 1407. Comparable 2 is 1417.
Group: Quick fix
Drafted response: The incorrect photo has been replaced with the front photo of 1417.
6
Condition: Appraiser license expiration date shows 2025.
Group: Quick fix
Drafted response: Updated to the current expiration date of 11/2027.
Items6
Answered0
Quick fix5
Your input1
Appraiser only0
Flags1
Appraiser signature
State certification #
Date of response
What the draft did not do
- It did not treat the higher contract price as a reason to revisit the value. It reported the appraiser's own conclusion and flagged it for confirmation.
- It did not apologize at length or add filler. Clerical fixes get a short table.
Sample 4 · The borrower's agent sent three sales
"Please consider these comps"
Sample. The request, property, AMC, people and figures below are invented to show the kind of draft Stip produces. They are not from a real assignment. The subject address is replaced with [subject], as we ask you to do. Comparable addresses stay.
The revision request, as received
From: Sample Home Lending, via AMC portal Loan: SAMPLE-4004 Subject: [subject], Sampleton, FL 34000 The borrower's agent has provided the following sales, which they believe are more comparable to the subject. Please consider these sales and comment. Revise the report if warranted. A) 5108 Cedar Glen Ct closed 04/2026 B) 221 Marsh Wren Ln closed 11/2025 C) 39 Harbor View Dr pending
The appraiser's notes, as typed
- Subject: 1,850 sq ft one-story, built 1996, C3, no pool, interior lot in Heron Point.
- A) Cedar Glen: 1,910 sq ft, fully remodeled 2025 (C2) per MLS, pool, lake lot. Superior condition, pool and view. Would need large adjustments in 3 categories. My comps 1 and 2 are both C3, no pool, same subdivision.
- B) Marsh Wren: across Gulf Blvd in Palm Isles, golf course lot, HOA with clubhouse and pool. Different market area and amenity package. Sold 11 months before effective date; I have 3 sales in the subject subdivision within 6 months.
- C) Harbor View: pending, not closed. I already show 2 pending sales as listings on page 8 for market support. Contract price not available.
- Conclusion: considered all three. No change to comps or value.
- Note: if the borrower wants to formally challenge the value, that goes through the lender's reconsideration of value process.
Opening lineThank you for passing these along. Each sale was considered. Comments are below and have been added to the report as an addendum.
A
Condition: 5108 Cedar Glen Ct, closed 04/2026.
Group: Needs your input
Drafted response: 5108 Cedar Glen Ct (closed 04/2026). Considered. MLS records show this home was fully remodeled in 2025 and has an inground pool and a lake lot. The subject has none of these features and was rated C3. Using this sale would require significant adjustments for condition, pool and view. Comparables 1 and 2 are in the subject's subdivision, have similar condition ratings and no pools, and needed smaller adjustments, so they were considered more reliable indicators.
B
Condition: 221 Marsh Wren Ln, closed 11/2025.
Group: Needs your input
Drafted response: 221 Marsh Wren Ln (closed 11/2025). Considered. This sale is in Palm Isles, across Gulf Blvd, on a golf course lot in an HOA with a clubhouse and community pool. That is a different market area and amenity package from the subject's subdivision. It also closed 11 months before the effective date, while three sales within the subject subdivision closed within the prior 6 months.
C
Condition: 39 Harbor View Dr, pending.
Group: Answered, p. 8
Drafted response: 39 Harbor View Dr (pending). This sale has not closed and its contract price is not available. Pending sales in the subject's market are already reported as listings on page 8 for market support.
Closing, from your notesAfter considering these sales, the comparables selected and the opinion of value were not changed. If the borrower wishes to formally request a reconsideration of value, that request can be submitted through the lender's reconsideration of value process. [APPRAISER: confirm your conclusion and whether you want the last paragraph included.]
Items3
Answered1
Quick fix0
Your input2
Appraiser only0
Flags1
Appraiser signature
State certification #
Date of response
What the draft did not do
- It did not treat the agent's sales as a reason to move the value, and it did not argue against the borrower or agent personally.
- It took each sale seriously and explained the appraiser's reasoning from the appraiser's notes. Lenders are allowed to ask an appraiser to consider additional comparable sales (Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.42(c)(3)(i)), so a reply that considers them and explains the decision is the professional response.
- It pointed to the formal reconsideration of value route instead of reopening the analysis informally.
Sample 5 · Levels, area terms, the pool row
A UAD 3.6 field question
Sample. The request, property, AMC, people and figures below are invented to show the kind of draft Stip produces. They are not from a real assignment. The subject address is replaced with [subject], as we ask you to do. Comparable addresses stay.
The three conditions are modeled on issues in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, UAD 3.6 Job Aid: Guidance for Appraisers through Lessons Learned (version 1.0, June 23, 2026), items 3, 7 and 8.
The revision request, as received
From: Collateral Review, Sample Valuation Services (AMC) Loan: SAMPLE-5005 Subject: [subject], Sampleton, TX 78000 Form: URAR (UAD 3.6) 1. Unit Interior: Levels in Unit is 2, but Level and Room Detail lists 3 levels (including Basement). Please correct. 2. Commentary refers to "GLA." Please use UAD 3.6 area terminology consistent with the Area Breakdown. 3. The inground pool was entered in an added "Other" row in the General Information section of the grid. Please report it in Property Amenities as a Water Feature.
The appraiser's notes, as typed
- Basement counts as a level. Levels in Unit should be 3.
- Replace "GLA" with "finished area above grade" everywhere in my commentary.
- Pool moved to Property Amenities, Water Feature row. Same $15,000 adjustment, no other change.
- No change to the opinion of value.
Opening lineThank you. All three items have been corrected in the revised UAD 3.6 report.
1
Condition: Unit Interior: Levels in Unit is 2, but Level and Room Detail lists 3 levels (including Basement). Please correct.
Group: Quick fix
Drafted response: Levels in Unit. Corrected to 3, so it matches the three rows in Level and Room Detail (Basement, Level 1, Level 2).
2
Condition: Commentary refers to "GLA." Please use UAD 3.6 area terminology consistent with the Area Breakdown.
Group: Quick fix
Drafted response: Area terminology. References to "GLA" in the commentary have been replaced with "finished area above grade," consistent with the Area Breakdown.
3
Condition: The inground pool was entered in an added "Other" row in the General Information section of the grid. Please report it in Property Amenities as a Water Feature.
Group: Quick fix
Drafted response: Inground pool. Moved from the added row in General Information to the Property Amenities section as a Water Feature. The adjustment amount is unchanged.
Closing, from your notesThese were reporting corrections. The opinion of value did not change.
Items3
Answered0
Quick fix3
Your input0
Appraiser only0
Flags0
Appraiser signature
State certification #
Date of response
What the draft did not do
- It did not move the pool adjustment amount. It moved only the row.
Send one of yours. The first draft is free.
Paste or forward a revision request with the borrower name, subject address and loan number removed, plus a few lines of notes. The draft comes back the same business day if it arrives by 2 pm US Central. Each draft is written with Claude, an AI model, and checked line by line by a person before it reaches you.