The first outsourced draft will rarely match every preference in your practice. The useful question is not whether you make amendments, but whether those amendments help the next draft improve.
Silently rewriting a paragraph may produce an acceptable report today while leaving the writer unaware of what went wrong. At the other extreme, a page covered in “change this” comments can create activity without explaining which corrections are property-specific and which should become part of the working method.
Classify the correction before commenting
A factual error is different from a change in professional judgement. A missed photograph is different from a preference about sentence length. Giving each correction a simple category helps the writer respond appropriately and helps the practice see whether the same problem is recurring.
| Category | Example of the issue | What the feedback should provide |
|---|---|---|
| Incorrect fact | The draft gives the wrong location, material or property detail. | The correct fact and the note, image or instruction that supports it. |
| Missed evidence | A supplied finding or limitation has not reached the relevant section. | Where the evidence sits and where it needs to be reflected. |
| Unsupported inference | The wording introduces a cause, condition or conclusion not supplied by the surveyor. | What must be removed or qualified, without replacing it with another assumption. |
| Surveyor decision | The rating, significance, timing or recommended action needs to change. | The inspecting surveyor’s intended assessment and advice. |
| Practice style | The meaning is sound but the terminology, structure or tone does not follow house style. | The preferred wording pattern and whether it should apply to future reports. |
| Template production | Text, ratings, photographs or fields are in the wrong place. | The correct destination and any standing template rule. |
This is a suggested workflow rather than an RICS-prescribed feedback system. The practice remains responsible for its own supervision, review and approval arrangements.
Point to the evidence, not just the preferred sentence
If the draft describes a defect at the front when your notes place it at the rear, identify the source of the correction. This allows the writer to fix the paragraph and understand whether the error came from the notes, an image label or the drafting process.
Where the instruction itself was ambiguous, say so. Useful feedback can improve the handover as well as the writer. It is less helpful to treat a reasonable query as a drafting failure when the material did not contain the answer.
Keep professional decisions explicit
The writer should not have to infer why you changed a condition rating, the urgency of a recommendation or the need for further investigation. Record the inspecting surveyor’s decision directly and check that the connected wording changes with it.
For example, changing a rating without reviewing the element description, recommendation and overall opinion may leave the report internally inconsistent. The surveyor decides the assessment; the drafter can then apply that decision across the relevant sections for review.
Distinguish one-off changes from standing preferences
Some amendments belong only to the inspected property. Others reveal a rule that should apply to future work, such as preferred terminology, paragraph length or how pre-exchange advice is expressed. Mark a comment as “this report only” or “future preference” so the writer does not turn a one-off decision into a standard phrase.
Add genuine recurring preferences to a short style guide rather than repeating them in every returned draft. Our article on maintaining your practice’s voice when outsourcing explains how to standardise tone and structure without standardising conclusions.
Comment where the correction is needed
Place the feedback beside the relevant paragraph or in a log that identifies the exact section. Keep each comment focused on one issue where possible. A single note covering the roof, walls and overall opinion is difficult to mark as resolved and easier to apply only partially.
If you rewrite wording yourself, retain a short explanation when the change teaches a reusable point. “Changed” tells the writer what happened; “removed unsupported cause—the notes record staining but do not identify its source” tells them why.
Check that feedback has been applied
A resolved comment is not proof that the amended wording is correct. Review the returned version and confirm that the correction appears in the intended section without altering related facts or advice. Use clear version names and avoid approving from an earlier attachment. The query-log guide offers a simple answered-versus-applied status for points that require the surveyor’s input.
After several representative reports, look for patterns. Repeated factual errors may indicate a labelling or handover problem. Repeated unsupported statements require a clearer drafting boundary. Repeated style edits may belong in the practice guide. Do not treat every edit as equally serious.
Use feedback to build a reliable working relationship
The Survey Edit prepares outsourced RICS Level 2 report drafts from the surveyor’s notes, photographs, template and instructions. The service supports the writing stage; the inspecting surveyor retains the technical judgement and carries out the final review, amendments, approval and issue.
If you want to test the process, start with one suitable instruction and agree how comments and revisions will be returned. You can enquire about Level 2 drafting support and explain the review workflow your practice already uses.
You inspect. We write.