This has been a very interesting thread to read.
I watch people with their dogs. While people think they are training their dog, most often the dog is training them too. I see this with report readers and appraisers. Each party learns the other's minimums because after all it gets down to minimums needed for coexistence. So, if a place does not change much or if they use the same AMC for a long period, these patterns are pretty quickly discernible.
When I am asked to comment on why the subject value is not 10% or less than the predominant price, I wonder have you ever checked how many appraisers just happen to land at 9%? But I do not ask it. I just leave that one thing off the prophylactic, stip-hexing comments the next time and the next time. The reason is already in there and I use line numbers, so I could refer someone reading a report for meaning to the places. But really, why bother? They do not understand appraisal or an appraisal. They are people with a checklist or the humans attending to automated rule set results. They are not going to ask an informed question, but they are going to ask something, something that exists independent of reason or salience. Just to ask. So I leave that particular one off. They can do their job, justify the cost of their service, and I know what will turn up.
If on the other hand there is an actual reviewer looking, I really try to nail it all upfront. Professional pride. Otherwise, woof.
