ValuLensCheck your own document
Sample report · real analysis, anonymised
Grade C

72.0%

Overall score

Terms of Engagement compliance assessment

ACME Holding LLC

ACME-Portfolio-Terms-of-Engagement.docx

Largely compliant: improvements advised

Several required terms are missing or unclear; the ToE should be amended before it is relied on.

Even with a higher score, the grade would stop at B while 1 requirement group scores zero: Environmental, sustainability & ESG.

Client
ACME Holding LLC
Firm
ACME Valuers Pty Ltd
Valuer
Jane Doe MRICS
Jurisdiction
Australia
Properties
Portfolio of 4
ToE status
Draft, not signed

Assessed by ValuLens, an AI system, against RICS and IVS standards. Findings should be confirmed by a qualified person before they are relied on.

Start here

6 changes to reach B

72.0% C now, about 82.5% B after them.

  1. 1Required by lawState licensingQueensland Board registration and 2 moreunder 1 pt72.6% C
  2. 2Environmental, sustainability & ESGClimate-related financial disclosures (AASB S2), ESG factors · all 4 properties+5.4 pts78.0% C
  3. 3Independence & specialist disclosureIndependence / conflict disclosure · all 4 properties+4.5 pts82.5% · Reaches B

Estimates after each step, assuming each change is judged Adequate (3 of 4).

Compliance map

Where the Terms of Engagement stand: every group of requirements, scored from 0 to 4. Select a group to read its findings.

Document terms · 13 groups

3–4 Adequate or better2 Partial1 Mentioned only0 Not addressed

D14 is scored Partial (2) because the ToE does not say whether AI is used. When no AI is used, a clear statement saying so scores it Adequate (3 of 4).

Property terms · 4 properties × 8 groups, groups below Adequate

Select a property or a score to open its findings.

Action plan

14 changes in 9 groups, ordered by effect on the grade. All of them together: about 88.9%, grade B. The wording is an example to adapt: complete the brackets, such as [Valuer name], and keep only what is true.

  1. 2.

    Environmental, sustainability & ESG

    2 changes · property terms · +5.4 pts

  2. 3.

    Independence & specialist disclosure

    1 change · property terms · +4.5 pts

  3. 4.

    Assumptions & special assumptions

    2 changes · property terms · +2.0 pts

  4. 5.

    Valuation date

    1 change · property terms · +1.8 pts

  5. 6.

    Use of artificial intelligence

    1 change · document terms · under 1 pt

  6. 7.

    Report format, delivery & reporting protocol

    1 change · document terms · under 1 pt

  7. 8.

    Standards compliance, statutes & departures

    1 change · document terms · under 1 pt

  8. 9.

    Identification, status & disclosures of valuer and firm

    2 changes · document terms · under 1 pt

In brief

  • Strongest: Client identification & instruction source; Intended users, reliance & third parties; Purpose, intended use & purpose-specific terms; Responsibility for information provided; Use, distribution & publication restrictions; Fee basis, and 6 more.

Not applicable to this engagement, so left out of the score: Rotation / Additional Valuers (D1f); Specialist Disclosure (Document) (D1g); Time as Signatory Disclosure (D1h); Proportion of Fees Disclosure (D1j); Specialist Disclosure (P1b); Revaluation Without Reinspection (P5c).

Properties

4 properties, graded one by one. Each property carries its own grade; the portfolio score averages them.

Grade D

#1 Brisbane City

480 Queen Street

Brisbane City, QLD 4000

69.4%
residentialFreehold (100%)Market ValueComparison
12 adequate or better0 partial3 not addressed
Grade D

#2 The Rocks

129 Harrington Street

The Rocks, NSW 2000

53.8%
residentialFreehold (100%)Market ValueComparison
10 adequate or better0 partial1 mentioned only4 not addressed
Grade D

#3 Perth

11 Mounts Bay Road

Perth, WA 6000

53.1%
residentialLeasehold (99 years unexpired)Market ValueComparison
9 adequate or better0 partial2 mentioned only4 not addressed
Grade C

#4 Adelaide

25 Grenfell Street

Adelaide, SA 5000

73.4%
residentialFreehold (100%)Market ValueComparison
12 adequate or better0 partial1 mentioned only2 not addressed

Findings

Requirement by requirement: what we looked for, what the ToE says, and why it matters. Gaps are shown first.

D1Identification, status & disclosures of valuer and firm

2.4 / 4

D6Report format, delivery & reporting protocol

2 / 4

D8Standards compliance, statutes & departures

2.8 / 4

D14AI use & client disclosure

2 / 4

Good practice

Beyond what the ToE must contain: a missing clause or practice does not reduce the grade.

Engagement clauses

Contract-level good practice

6 / 14 included

Property clauses

Checked once for all 4 properties

2 / 14 included

The ToE does not say whether AI is used, so the firm's own AI governance (RICS AI standard, sections 2 to 5) is not assessed here.

Standards and method

Assessed against

  • RICS Valuation – Global Standards (Red Book) 2025

    PS 1, PS 2, VPS 1–5

  • International Valuation Standards (IVS) 2025

    IVS 101–106

  • RICS Australia National Supplement

    Issued 6 November 2025: registration, state licensing, law, privacy, ESG

  • RICS Responsible Use of AI in Surveying Practice

    Effective 9 March 2026: what the ToE must tell the client (sections 4.3–4.4) is scored; the firm's own AI governance is given as advice

  • RICS ESG & Sustainability in Commercial Property Valuation

    4th edition, effective 30 April 2026

The score reflects ValuLens's methodology; another reviewer may weigh terms differently.

Next step

Make the changes above (about 88.9%, grade B, if all are made), then check the revised Terms of Engagement to confirm the new grade. The estimates assume each change is Adequate; an A needs most requirements stated in full (Comprehensive, 4 of 4).

Check a Terms of Engagement