Why would anyone presume differently?
A fair question and I'll give you my answer:
Sometimes I get hired by a client who is looking for an appraiser to provide an appraisal. Actually, what the client is hiring me to complete is an appraisal consulting service. The distinction is lost on the client but not on me.
Likewise I've been asked to be a consultant. In fact, what the client wants and expects is an appraisal review. The client doesn't see a difference between the two and, after I attempt to explain it, they quickly forget the explanation because it is not important to them.
Alternatively, I've been asked to review when the client really wants a consultant (this occurs primarily with attorneys).
My point is this: Non-appraisers think of our services in categories that make sense to them but the terms they use to describe those categories are not the same terms we appraisers use because our terms have specific definitions.
ProTeck (who I don't work for) is a national valuation firm. I've met representatives who work for the company at various functions. Most of the representatives I've met are sales people who understand the product sufficiently so they can interest a potential client in purchasing the product.
I've also met individuals from that organization who understand appraising, USPAP, lender guidelines, etc. If you talk to them, their terms/speak is slightly different than the sales people; as a rule, they will use the technically correct terms in the context of USPAP and what appraisal regulations generally expect/require.
The service offering on the website is an advertisement. It is two sentences long. It is (IMO) a marketing teaser to interest potential clients as well as appraisers to find out more.
Your question is why shouldn't we presume the two-sentence marketing blurb is the SOW for the product/assignment?
My response is as an appraiser,
I would absolutely not presume that a two-sentence marketing blurb is sufficient to describe the SOW for an assignment.
And, while it certainly could be the SOW, it is (in my mind) more reasonable to presume that a national and established valuation organization who regularly provides USPAP-compliant products would be able to distinguish what is USPAP-compliant and what isn't. As such, I would further presume that the requirements of the assignment/product we are talking about is something other than a SR3-compliant review (as is indicated by Proteck) and is therefore something that, at this time, is unclear if it is an appraisal or not?
And, as I said, if it calls for a valuation, then it (at a minimum) needs to specifically comply with SR1 & 2 if completed by an appraiser who is required to follow USPAP.
So, unless one presumes that two sentences on a website marketing page is the entire assignment-engagement requirement (as you ask why shouldn't that be the case), one would (or
should, I'd argue) reasonably presume (as I explicitly do) that there is more to the assignment/SOW than the marketing page communicates.
But that's me.
