3.6 The promises, the predictions, the panic and the fight for the dwindling appraiser dollars

[Ca Ar Independent]

Many of us are trying to wade through the quagmire of information regarding the next disruptor in our work lives. I ignored the whole 3.6 thing for a while, then decided to deep dive to clarify things for myself by trying several of the different software platforms claiming to be "ready" (or close to ). I also tried to write a sample report of my house using Automax.AI . I have watched numerous webinars with my peers, tech folk and sales people trying to paint this as the "next great thing" as they try and force feed this crap to us. What an opportunity. I have always tried to weather the various spike strips thrown in our paths (new forms, scope creep, Dodd-Frank, the AMC world) with the intent of continuing in the profession I love.

My takeaways:

Software providers have had to invest enormous amounts of time and $ to create complaint software and are now competing for OUR bucks to make that up. This competition involves the promises of what their software can do for us and have a wide array of designs. I tried SFREP, Total, Automax.AI and found none to be smooth or intuitive in creating a credible report. Bradford was not far enough along to be tested. Automax.AI was unstable with it freezing and crashing, perhaps due to my system capability and the large data processing. It did better on my Ipad than my (older) desktop.

The learning curve/hell will fall on the appraiser (as always) as the software glitches, crashes and includes the slop of good and bad data. Reports will not be credible since nobody will be able to untangle the "behind the scenes" operations of the software. This was the most apparent in the Automax.AI report, which input huge amounts of incorrect data and assigned random and bizarre ratings and adjustments. It rated my home as Q3.2, a "comp" as 3.8 and adjusted 56,000 in the wrong direction.

Some thinking fees will go up may find that they really won't result in more profit for us, since software companies will be making up for their investments and more time plus new portal fees are likely.

Adapt or die. This sh*t show is coming fast, and we each have to find a way through for our own business model. Many will find that the way through is to retire. Valid.

We have every reason to be angry about this, particularly those of us that are older and feel our expertise is being de-valued (again) and we are forced to enter the race to the bottom (again).

From what I can see at this point, the new product will be inferior, less credible and nobody involved in the development seems to care except the appraiser, who will once again be required to put our names (and licenses) on a product that we do not believe in and take responsibility for its's flaws.

Feel free to rant

 

[DWiley]

From what I can see at this point, the new product will be inferior, less credible and nobody involved in the development seems to care except the appraiser, who will once again be required to put our names (and licenses) on a product that we do not believe in and take responsibility for its's flaws.

Feel free to rant

You are conflating issues. There is nothing in the UAD spec related to software automatically suggesting ratings and/or adjustments.

Does some of the software offer such capabilities? Sure. That kind of stuff has been around a very long time, and it is growing now with the expansion of AI use. As with any tool, there is nothing compelling or requiring its use and/or the acceptance of the output. If you do not think an analysis is credible, then you certainly should not sign your name to a report that uses the analysis.

There is an adjustment tool that has been out for a couple of years now that some appraisers use. I would never use it because when I looked into it I found that the method it was using was in direct conflict with fundamental appraisal principles. Some choose to ignore that and use its output. That is on them. They are choosing to use it without understanding its flaws; they are not required or compelled to use it (or any other such tool).

 

[George Hatch]

The first 2 pages of the URAR are easy to read at a glance. They're stuffing ~80 lines per page.

I think the AI forms (~60 lines per page + larger margins) are a lot easier for a reader to read, though. The material covered on the front page of the URAR takes up the first 4 pages of the AIs SFR form. 8 pages for the valuation portion itself, not counting the other 2.1/2 pages of certs and whatever else someone wants to add to those certs.

I haven't looked at what the appraisalware vendors are offering so I don't know. I'd be a little surprised of the "form" the appraisalware vendors display take up as many pages as the pdf used for the GSE's demo. If the data is the thing then they can format for a more concise display. Perhaps not in the initial iteration but certainly with subsequent iterations.

 

[Dublin ohio]

The first 2 pages of the URAR are easy to read at a glance. They're stuffing ~80 lines per page.

I think the AI forms (~60 lines per page + larger margins) are a lot easier for a reader to read, though. The material covered on the front page of the URAR takes up the first 4 pages of the AIs SFR form. 8 pages for the valuation portion itself, not counting the other 2.1/2 pages of certs and whatever else someone wants to add to those certs.

I haven't looked at what the appraisalware vendors are offering so I don't know. I'd be a little surprised of the "form" the appraisalware vendors display take up as many pages as the pdf used for the GSE's demo. If the data is the thing then they can format for a more concise display. Perhaps not in the initial iteration but certainly with subsequent iterations.

From what I have seen. It isn't the final output that is the issue. It is the numerous drop down menus it take to get there

 

[George Hatch]

But that would be a software issue, right? The formatting could leave the fixed appraiser's view open on the right with a separate side panel fixed to the left side showing the contents of the options for the highlighted field. The menu panel is fixed to the left; only the contents change depending on which field the appraiser has highlighted. That wouldn't be some busy display with menus popping up in different positions on the screen.

Kinda like the details + preview view in Windows

 

[Bobby Bucks]

The damage control brigade certainly responded quickly. Doubting the purity of 3.6 is heresy.

 

[George Hatch]

I'm not doing damage control. I'm trying to find some perspective on the issue. I already use a report format that has more report pages than the URAR. It's already easier for me to print a hard copy to review instead of scrolling through a single page 1 on my screen that covers what my first 4 pages cover. I had to adapt a little to what I am using. It looks like the 3.6 is going to require more adaptation than the AI forms require but the principle is the same. You can't review the problem identification section of the AI forms at a glance, either.

 

[DWiley]

The damage control brigade certainly responded quickly. Doubting the purity of 3.6 is heresy.

It does not bother me at all when people criticize UAD 3.6. But, if people want to criticize, they should understand the thing they are criticizing. The UAD is just a data spec. It does not dictate any specific user interface that must be used to get to that data spec. Anyone who has tested the various software solutions out there can easily see that the various companies have taken very varied approaches to the user interface. And automated adjustments/ratings has nothing to do with the UAD. That is just a fact, not a defense or "damage control"

 

[Fernando]

For sure this year, interest rates won't go down thus mortgage rates will continue to go up. No refi appraisal boom for appraisers.
With the new UAD 3.6 mess, another disincentive to continue working as an appraiser.
The decrease in number of appraisers this year will tilt advantage to the appraisers who are left and who
can survive this challenging year.

 

[gregb]

But, if people want to criticize, they should understand the thing they are criticizing. The UAD is just a data spec.

Chatgpt on "modernization"

The key modernization shifts​

1) From “forms” → to a​

• UAD 2.6 relies on specific forms (1004, 1073, etc.)
• UAD 3.6 replaces all of them with a single, flexible URAR driven by property characteristics

✔ Why this matters:

• No more “which form do I use?”
• The report adapts to SFR, condo, 2–4 unit, manufactured, etc.
• Much more scalable for new property types (ADUs, hybrids, etc.)

---

2) From narrative text → to​

• UAD 2.6: lots of free text and abbreviations
• UAD 3.6: granular, standardized data fields

Examples:

• Component-level condition & updates (kitchen, baths, flooring)
• Separate interior vs exterior condition ratings
• More detailed property characteristics and attributes

✔ Why this matters:

• Enables automated QC and validation
• Reduces ambiguity (“C3 vs C4 debates” become more data-supported)
• Makes appraisals searchable and comparable at scale

---

3) Alignment with​

• UAD 2.6 used older XML conventions
• UAD 3.6 is fully aligned with MISMO 3.6

✔ Why this matters:

• Seamless integration with LOS, underwriting, QC systems
• Appraisal data becomes part of the broader mortgage data ecosystem

This is a major “modernization” piece—moving appraisals into the same data architecture as everything else.

---

4) From PDF delivery → to​

• UAD 2.6: XML + PDF
• UAD 3.6: ZIP file with XML + PDF + images + structured metadata

✔ Why this matters:

• Photos are tagged and usable (not just embedded)
• Data can be extracted without re-keying
• Supports AI / analytics / automated review

---

5) From static scope → to​

• UAD 2.6: scope largely embedded in form
• UAD 3.6: scope is explicitly defined by data inputs

✔ Why this matters:

• Supports:
  
  • hybrid appraisals
  • desktop appraisals
  • waivers / alternatives
• Fits into the broader valuation modernization ecosystem

---

6) Expanded data →​

UAD 3.6 introduces:

• More property-level detail
• Standardized condition/quality definitions
• Energy/green features (increasingly relevant)

✔ Why this matters:

• GSEs can:
  
  • run automated QC at scale
  • benchmark appraisers
  • detect risk patterns earlier

This is the core policy goal: better collateral risk management

---

7) Standardization across ALL property types​

• UAD 2.6 had gaps (e.g., manufactured housing inconsistencies)
• UAD 3.6 applies consistent data rules across all residential types

✔ Why this matters:

• Eliminates edge-case inconsistencies
• Improves comparability across markets and property types

---

Bottom line (how it’s “modernization”)​

UAD 3.6 is considered modernization because it transforms appraisal reporting from:

➤ A document-based process​

into

➤ A​

That enables:

• automation (QC, underwriting, risk flags)
• analytics (portfolio-level insights)
• flexibility (new appraisal types, property types)
• integration (LOS, DU/LPA, collateral tools)

---

A practical appraiser takeaway​

From your perspective in the field:

• Less narrative freedom, more structured reporting
• More upfront data discipline required
• Less “storytelling,” more “data justification”
• But also:
  
  • fewer revision loops
  • clearer expectations
  • more defensible outputs