Good points—I've seen similar issues pop up. Had a client once who brought in their own inspector, and the guy completely overlooked some pretty obvious electrical stuff because he was hyper-focused on cosmetic details. Ended up causing delays and extra costs down the line. Makes me wonder, how do you guys usually vet inspectors to make sure they're thorough without being overly picky? Seems like a tricky balance to strike...
Yeah, vetting inspectors is tricky... I've noticed some inspectors lean heavily on checklists, which can be good for thoroughness but sometimes misses the bigger picture. Maybe asking upfront about their approach or past experiences helps gauge their balance? Curious how others handle this.
Totally agree—checklists are helpful but can become a crutch. I usually ask inspectors to walk me through a recent tricky inspection they handled... hearing their thought process reveals a lot about their judgment and flexibility beyond just ticking boxes.
Good point about inspectors and checklists. I've noticed something similar with insurance adjusters—some rely way too heavily on their standard forms. Had a situation last year where a storm damaged part of our development, and the adjuster initially missed some subtle structural issues because they weren't on his checklist. It took walking him through the site step-by-step to get him to see beyond the boxes. Definitely pays off to have someone who can think flexibly when things get complicated...
"It took walking him through the site step-by-step to get him to see beyond the boxes."
That's a great example of why flexibility matters. I've seen similar issues with adjusters overlooking interior damage—especially subtle water intrusion or mold risks that aren't immediately obvious. Makes me wonder, do insurance companies ever update these checklists based on real-world feedback, or are they pretty much set in stone? Seems like they'd benefit from regular input from folks actually dealing with these situations...
