Afterword: A Small Correction and a Larger Point

Clarifying the terminology used in Parts 1 through Part 3

Afterword: A Small Correction and a Larger Point

After finishing this three-part series, I took another look at the reporting language that has quietly shaped our profession. In writing about “implications” and “explanations,” I drew from two parallel frameworks that sit side by side in my daily work: the ASHI Standard of Practice and the Illinois Standard of Practice. Their structures are similar enough that the vocabulary can feel interchangeable, even when the details differ.

ASHI requires inspectors to provide reasoning or explanation when the nature of a deficiency is not self-evident.
Illinois requires a reason why, if the issue is not self-evident, and then adds a mandatory statement on whether the condition should be corrected or monitored.

Older inspection courses and templates introduced yet another layer by teaching the familiar condition–implication–recommendation structure. Over time, that instructional vocabulary became part of how many inspectors think, speak, and write, even though the word “implication” never appeared in the ASHI Standard itself.

So the correction here is modest: the source of that implication-style language lives more in training history and my own personal report writing practice than in ASHI’s formal text. But the larger point remains unchanged. Inspectors operate within a blend of standards, state requirements, educational traditions, and report-writing habits. When the frameworks overlap, the seams can blur even for those who work with them every day.

---

Part 1: What My Own Report Taught Me About Implications, Standards, and the Craft of Home Inspection
Part 2: What Age-Related Conditions Tell Us About Buyers, and About Ourselves
Part 3: Implications, Judgment, and the Craft of Home Inspection Narrative Reports