The property condition report
PCA Draft Comment Response Log Template & Example
Last updated 2026-10-10
A lender's comment can ask for a clearer sentence, identify a calculation error or request work the assessment never included. Give each comment its own response and evidence reference before editing the draft. This log keeps an answered question from being confused with a changed property condition.
Property Condition Assessments LLC's own FAQ describes issuing a draft, receiving client comments and then delivering a final report. That is evidence of one firm's workflow, not a universal timetable. The response fields below are a suggested way to manage that cycle. E2018 describes the report's point-in-time use in its public discussion at 4.2.1; a drafting cycle does not itself provide new field observations.
Use this alongside the draft property condition report. The executive summary states the resulting findings; this log records how each requested change was handled. The Bellwether example follows a correction already described in the live summary, accepts a clarification to the unit count and leaves unsupported requests open or declined.
Jurisdiction
Written primarily against US practice: the ASTM E2018 baseline, agency scopes such as Fannie Mae Form 4099, and — where a page says so explicitly — California statute. Client scope governs any individual engagement and may expand or reduce what is described here. State and local inspection obligations differ, and licensure requirements for the work described vary by state. Outside the US, treat the structure as transferable and the standards and statutes as not.
PCA Draft Comment Response Log template
Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.
When to use this document
- A lender or buyer sends comments on a draft narrative and its two cost schedules.
- Comments arrive in several emails or marked-up copies and need a single response record.
- A comment would change an observation, a cost opinion or the scope rather than just the wording.
Worked example
Fictional. The response log between the Bellwether Commons draft summary of 18 March 2026 and report issue of 27 March 2026. Comments and correspondence below are invented and illustrative. The cost figures repeat the library's fictional correction and are illustrative only, not estimating guidance or values to reuse.
Draft Set and Comment Register
Engagement NC-2026-0217, Northbank Capital, Bellwether Commons. The log is opened for comments on the 18 March draft summary and accompanying report materials. The site visit remains 4 March. Four entries received through Northbank's transaction contact are assigned IDs D-01 through D-04: reconcile the immediate-repair total; clarify the unit sample; remove the clubhouse roof limitation; and show whether the panel question has a cost allowance. The comments are identified by section heading rather than page number. This is a fictional client comment round on the existing acquisition assignment; no new lender form or agency scope is introduced.
Evidence and Requested Action
D-01 points to the difference between the earlier summary and the developed immediate-repair schedule. The relevant basis is the schedule's treatment of temporary valley repairs at buildings 3 and 7 ahead of the roof replacement in reserves. D-02 refers to the field count of fifteen observed units, including the four reported down for turnover. D-03 supplies no new roof observation and asks for a shorter limitations section. D-04 asks for a number for the electrical panels, but supplies no manufacturer identification or other evidence that would resolve the existing question. Each entry distinguishes a drafting request from new information about the property.
Response and Disposition
D-01 is accepted as a reconciliation correction: the illustrative immediate-repair total is $98,216, replacing the $118,400 carried in the earlier draft summary. The response points to the changed treatment of the roof valleys and does not describe repairs as completed. D-02 is accepted as a clarification: the four down units are included in the fifteen, not additional to them. D-03 is declined because editing the paragraph cannot provide observation of the unaccessed roof area. D-04 is answered with an explicit undetermined status for the panel exposure and remains linked to the recommendation for identification; no replacement cost is supplied.
Narrative and Schedule Reconciliation
The D-01 record identifies the Immediate Repairs Table and executive summary as the places where the corrected total must agree. It also points to the roofing narrative and the separate replacement entry in the Replacement Reserves Table so the temporary repair is not described as full replacement. This log creates no new reserve amount or service-life assumption. D-02 changes the explanation of the observed sample and changes neither schedule. For D-03, the clubhouse limitation remains in the narrative and summary. For D-04, the schedule discussion makes clear that the unresolved exposure is unpriced; a blank numeric allowance is not described as a finding that the panels need no work.
Open Items at Report Issue
At the issue check, the wording and total corrections are complete. The underlying clubhouse roof, northern paving and electrical identification questions remain as described in the report. No return visit or specialist result has been added through this comment cycle. The log points to those open matters in the delivered limitations and summary so they remain visible outside the email chain. D-03's requested deletion is closed as declined; the roof question itself remains unresolved. D-04's request for an amount is closed with the explanation that the available information does not establish the scope to price.
Issue and Comment Closeout Record
The issue record identifies the 27 March PCR, its two cost schedules and appendices as the delivered set. The 18 March summary is marked superseded in the transaction folder, and the issued summary itself explains the earlier total. The response log is retained with both the original comments and the delivered files. Northbank's transaction contact receives the log with the report, including the declined deletion and the unpriced panel question. This records what was issued and how the comments were handled; it does not record lender acceptance, resolution of all property questions or a second assessment date.
Section-by-section guide
What each section is for, what a good one contains, and where they typically go wrong.
1.Draft Set and Comment Register
Identify the draft narrative, both tables and appendices sent for comment. Assign a stable ID to each comment and keep the original request with its author, date and report reference. Page numbers can change; include the section heading or schedule item as well.
2.Evidence and Requested Action
Identify what the comment asks to change and what supports it: the existing field record, a calculation, a newly supplied document or an unverified statement. Record the date and origin of new material. A preference for a smaller allowance is a request; it is not the cost basis.
3.Response and Disposition
State whether the requested edit is accepted, partly accepted, declined or pending, and give the reason. Write the replacement wording or the exact location of the change. If additional work is needed, record that action and its owner without claiming the original comment is resolved.
4.Narrative and Schedule Reconciliation
Trace an accepted edit through the narrative, Immediate Repairs Table, Replacement Reserves Table and summary. Record which changed and which did not. Keep an unresolved amount visibly undetermined rather than letting it become a numeric zero during reconciliation.
5.Open Items at Report Issue
Separate an unfinished edit from an unresolved property question. The first may prevent an internally consistent issue set; the second may belong expressly in the delivered findings and limitations. State what the parties agreed to receive and what remains to be answered.
6.Issue and Comment Closeout Record
Record the final filenames, issue date and superseded draft. Preserve the response log with the issue set. Closing a comment means recording its disposition; it need not mean granting the requested edit or resolving the underlying condition.
Common mistakes
The failure modes that show up most often when this document is reviewed later.
Accepting a requested edit without identifying its evidence.
The report may start describing a preference as an observed condition. Name the supporting record before changing the finding, and leave unsupported requests visible in the response.
Closing a comment with only 'done'.
The next reader cannot tell what changed or why. Record the disposition and exact report or table reference, including the reason for a declined edit.
Correcting the table and leaving the old total in the summary.
Both numbers can continue circulating. Reconcile the issue set and identify the superseded draft, as the Bellwether summary's published correction demonstrates.
Erasing an unresolved property question when its comment is answered.
An explanation can complete the response without resolving the condition. Preserve the open question in the delivered report and record its next action separately.
Questions
- Does every lender use this response format?
- No universal format is asserted here. Use the client's required format where one exists; otherwise these fields provide a suggested record of the comment cycle. The cited firm's FAQ supports the existence of a draft-and-comments workflow, not this particular layout.
- Can the report issue while a property question remains open?
- Record the delivery instruction and make the open question visible in the report, with its consequence and next action. Whether the client will accept that deliverable is a separate decision; a closed response log does not establish acceptance.
- What if a comment arrives with new evidence?
- Log the document or observation, its date and its source. Have the assessor decide what it changes, then identify the affected narrative and schedules. If it calls for additional work, record that request rather than implying the work was performed during editing.
The blank template
Exactly what is in the Word download, so you can see the structure before deciding whether you want it.
Draft Set and Comment Register
Evidence and Requested Action
Response and Disposition
Narrative and Schedule Reconciliation
Open Items at Report Issue
Issue and Comment Closeout Record
Download this template
Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.
Sources
Related templates
ASTM E2018-24 Property Condition Report Template
An ASTM E2018-24 property condition report template with a filled-in example — plus what changed in the 2024 edition and who the guide binds. Free Word download.
PCA Executive Summary Template & Example
An executive summary template for a property condition report, with a filled-in example: what belongs in it, what does not, and the totals it must reconcile.
Immediate Repairs Schedule Template & Example
An immediate repairs schedule template with a filled-in example — how items qualify and the basis behind every figure. Free Word download, no signup.
Replacement Reserves Schedule Template & Example
A replacement reserves schedule template with a filled-in example: components, useful lives, and the assumptions behind each figure. Free Word download, no signup.
This page is a documentation aid — not engineering advice, not legal advice, and not a substitute for the standard or client scope your engagement runs under. A template cannot tell you what your assessment requires. The worked example describes a fictional property, and its costs, quantities and service lives are illustrative only.