Assessment Framework

A structured, proportionate framework — applied consistently

ValComply.ai assesses a report against a defined framework rather than a subjective impression. The framework brings two lenses, proportionate tiers, a tier-adjusted grade and a practical acceptability outcome together into a single, defensible review.

1 — The two lenses

Reliability and proportionality, together

Forensic reliability

Whether the evidence, reasoning, calculations and adopted value can be independently examined, traced and tested. This asks: could another competent professional follow how the value was reached, and would the evidence support it?

Commercial proportionality

Whether the scope and level of detail are reasonable for the property, purpose and risk. A concise report can be entirely appropriate for a simple, well-evidenced asset; a complex assignment demands more.

These lenses are complementary, not competing. A report is not penalised for being concise where concision is appropriate, nor excused for thin evidence where the assignment demands depth.

2 — Proportionate tiers

The required depth follows the risk

Tier 1 — Simple

Standard residential or common commercial property, ample comparable evidence, limited complexity and low uncertainty. A concise, well-evidenced report can fully satisfy the assignment.

Tier 2 — Moderate

More material value, reduced market homogeneity, unusual attributes, or additional tenancy, title or evidence considerations that warrant closer reasoning.

Tier 3 — Complex

Specialised property, thin or indirect evidence, related-party arrangements, development potential, complex lease or title matters, or significant valuation uncertainty. The report must demonstrate its reasoning in depth.

The tier is assigned automatically. It is inferred from the property, value, purpose, evidence and risk — not selected manually — and may be revised where the detailed review reveals additional complexity or risk.
3 — Tier-adjusted grade

Graded against what the assignment requires

High QualityEvidence and reasoning meet or exceed what the tier requires; the adopted value is well supported and clearly explained.
Medium QualityA sound report with some gaps in evidence, reasoning or presentation that do not undermine the overall conclusion.
Low QualityMaterial gaps in evidence or reasoning that limit how far the report can be relied upon without further work.
Does Not Meet Minimum RequirementsThe report lacks the essential evidence or reasoning needed to support the adopted value for the assignment.
4 — Acceptability outcome

A separate, practical finding

Reported alongside the grade because quality and fitness for purpose are related but not identical.

AcceptableThe report appears suitable for the stated purpose.
Acceptable with LimitationsThe report appears suitable, subject to noted limitations that do not prevent reliance.
Further Evidence or Amendment RequiredThe report requires clarification, further evidence or amendment before it can be relied upon.
Not Suitable for SMSF AssessmentOn the information provided, the report does not appear suitable for the stated purpose.
5 — Evidence support

How well the value is evidenced

Each assessment records how strongly the adopted value is supported by the material in the report.

Well supported
Reasonably supported
Partially supported
Weakly supported
Not demonstrated
6 — Finding severity

Material issues, separated from minor ones

Every finding carries a severity so that effort is focused where it genuinely affects reliability.

CriticalGoes to the reliability of the adopted value.
MaterialA significant gap that should be addressed.
MinorA limitation that does not prevent reliance.
ObservationA point of improvement, not a deficiency.
What the framework examines

A comprehensive review across the report

Areas that do not apply to a given assignment are marked accordingly rather than counted against the report.

Identification & scope

Property, interest, purpose, basis of value, dates and reliance.

Basis & methodology

Approach adopted, its suitability, and any cross-checks.

Evidence & analysis

Comparable evidence, adjustments and how the value is derived.

Property & legal factors

Physical attributes, title, tenancy, planning and encumbrances.

Assumptions & conditions

Special assumptions, limiting conditions and their disclosure.

Reporting & presentation

Clarity, internal consistency and completeness of the report.

The framework is designed around widely recognised valuation reporting principles. It supports professional review; it does not certify compliance with any particular standard or determine regulatory acceptance.

See the framework applied to your reports

Request a demonstration and we will walk through a full assessment.