Part Three: Implications, Judgment, and the Craft of Home Inspection Narrative Reports

Part Three of a Three-Part Series on Implications, Judgment, and the Craft of Home Inspection Reports

This post continues the discussion from Parts One and Part Two, where I explored when implications matter, why some harmless conditions still deserve attention, and how homebuyers interpret the details we present. In this final installment, we turn to the tools inspectors use to communicate those findings — the default comment structures that can support good reporting or quietly undermine it.

---

Why Templates Can’t See What You See

Templates are efficient.
They save time, reduce repetition, and help ensure consistency.

But a template cannot tell the difference between:

• a harmless material quirk

• an age-related change

• a cosmetic irregularity

• a meaningful deficiency

• or a significant safety concern

So the template does what templates do:
it standardizes.

That standardization becomes a problem when:

• the age of the home matters

• the context of the condition matters

• the presence of the client matters

• the performance of the component matters

• or the story that the house is telling matters

Templates flatten nuance.
Inspectors interpret it.

This is why software, by itself, cannot determine whether a cracked slab is merely informational or whether a missing handrail is a safety risk.
Only the inspector can do that.

---

When Implications Add Clarity — and When They Only Add Clutter

One of the most common missteps encouraged by templates is the universal implication — the belief that every comment must say what will happen if the condition is not corrected.

But as we established earlier:

The Standard requires inspectors to state the implications of the conditions only for deficiencies that are not self-evident.

Which means many template-driven narratives are unnecessarily elaborate.

Implications add clarity when:

• the defect carries risk

• the consequence is not obvious

• the significance is invisible

• the condition could escalate

• or the client may misunderstand the seriousness

Implications add clutter when:

• the condition is self-explanatory

• the item is cosmetic

• the client is not likely to take any action regardless

• the explanation does not change the buyer’s understanding

• the narrative grows longer without improving clarity

Templates tend to err on the side of overstatement.
Inspectors must err on the side of accuracy.

---

The Distinction Templates Rarely Get Right: Near-End-of-Life vs. Not-Functioning

Most template libraries treat these as interchangeable. They are not.

Not Functioning Properly

A current deficiency is when something is:

• leaking

• buzzing

• flickering

• misaligned

• not performing as intended

These deserves correction.

Near End of Life

A material or component that:

• is old

• still functions

• may need replacement in coming years

• is operating within its expected decline

The SoP does not require inspectors to predict future failure.

Yet templates often push age-based recommendations that read like defects, which can distort the meaning of the report and inflate a client’s sense of urgency.

The moment we begin calling everything a deficiency is the moment the report stops being a tool of clarity and becomes a source of confusion.

---

Why Clients Want the Narrative — Not Just a list of Defects

A report filled with defects is alarming.
A report filled only with defects is incomplete.

Buyers want the story of the home, not just its problems.

They want to understand:

• what is old

• what is typical

• what is harmless

• what is character

• what is cosmetic

• what is worth monitoring

• and what genuinely needs attention

Templates do a poor job telling this story.
Only a thoughtful narrative does it well.

This is why the most meaningful reports often balance:

• a handful of actionable recommendations

• several important safety findings

• and dozens of small, harmless observations that help the buyer understand the home they’re stepping into

The narrative is not fluff.
It is orientation.

---

What Templates Can Do — and What They Cannot Do

Templates can:

• prevent omissions

• speed documentation

• house useful boilerplate

• maintain consistency

Templates cannot:

• replace judgment

• distinguish risk from character

• assess context

• sense the client’s concerns

• determine the significance of a condition

• understand the age or integrity of a component

The narrative library in the report writing software should support the inspector, not replace the inspector’s narrative craft.

This distinction isn’t often discussed in the profession, but it should be.

---

Where This Three-Part Series Leaves Us

Across these three posts, a pattern has emerged:

Part One:

The Standard requires implications only for deficiencies that are not self-evident.
Judgment determines when to elaborate.

Part Two:

Clients often want reassurance more than recommendations.
Small, harmless conditions help build confidence that the inspector was thorough.

Part Three:

Templates are helpful, but only inspectors can tell the story of a home.
Narrative clarity requires inspector’s judgment, added to the software’s automated phrasing.

Together, these form a single message:

The implications we include in our reports are the tools of communication, not a requirement for every comment. And inspector’s are not required to present everything as a defect.

Our job is to clarity what matters including some conditions that are merely part of the home’s story.

---

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 4: A Small Correction and a Larger Lesson