Review shared-property reserve and governance evidence
Compare reserve studies, budgets and meeting records for a shared property, then prepare an evidence-linked question packet before a purchase or portfolio review.
How this works
Use this workflow when a property package mixes reserve-fund studies, operating budgets, accounts and committee minutes. Its purpose is to expose what the documents actually establish about future shared costs, planned works and governance. Keep reported balances separate from forecast project costs and from the reviewer’s conclusions about adequacy.
The assistant organizes evidence across documents; a spreadsheet performs arithmetic. A current balance cannot establish that a reserve is sufficient, and silence in minutes cannot establish that no dispute exists. Produce targeted questions tied to dates, pages and responsible parties. If only local files are available, a document register and workbook are sufficient.
Before you start
Review scope
Identify the property, unit or ownership share, review date and specific decision the advisor is supporting.
Document request list
Have the responsible reviewer define expected minutes, accounts, budgets, reserve study and governing documents.
Review owner
Name the person authorized to interpret financial obligations and local property rules.
Prepare the inputs
- document_pack
- Required
PDFs or text with file IDs
Match property names, reporting periods and version dates; preserve unreadable pages.
- review_questions
- Required
Question list
Distinguish required purchase conditions from optional lifestyle questions.
- ownership_basis
- Required
Recorded unit share or allocation rule
Do not infer a liability allocation from floor area or a similarly named unit.
- expected_documents
- Required
Checklist with dates
Mark absent documents missing, never evidence of a zero balance or no planned works.
Implementation, step by step
Register periods and gaps
- List every file, property identifier, document date and covered period.
- Separate budgets from actual accounts and revised reserve studies from superseded copies.
Checkpoint: The reviewer can see exactly which periods and expected documents are present.
Extract commitments and balances
- Record reserve balances, planned work, stated project timing, special assessments and relevant meeting decisions.
- Attach a page or paragraph reference to each figure; retain competing values instead of selecting a convenient one.
Checkpoint: Every material item has a dated source and a fact or uncertainty label.
Reconcile related evidence
- Connect minutes discussing a project to its budget or reserve-study entry.
- Use deterministic arithmetic only where the currency, period and allocation basis agree; do not add unrelated estimates.
Checkpoint: A comparison table distinguishes matches, mismatches and records that cannot be compared.
Review governance questions
- Extract stated voting, approval and reporting requirements from supplied governing records.
- Flag missing approval evidence or unresolved questions for the authorized reviewer without declaring a legal breach.
Checkpoint: Each governance concern names the record needed to resolve it.
Build the advisor packet
- Draft a concise factual summary, a missing-record request and questions about funding or project status.
- Keep external legal requirements out unless the reviewer supplied or verified the applicable version.
Checkpoint: The packet supports a human review and contains no automatic buy or reject conclusion.
Decisions along the way
An assessment is mentioned but no amount is approved
Record an unresolved potential obligation; do not allocate an invented amount to the unit.
Reserve figures disagree
Show both dates and values, then ask which superseding statement is authoritative.
What you will produce
property-evidence.xlsx
WorkbookReconciles the supplied evidence without scoring the property.
Include: item_id · period · reported_value · source · comparison · review_status
property-review-questions.md
MarkdownAn advisor packet for financial, property and legal follow-up.
Include: question · evidence · missing_record · owner
Check the result
- Trace each balance and major work item back to the original page.
- Verify arithmetic uses consistent periods, currencies and ownership rules.
- Check that unsigned minutes and draft budgets are clearly labeled.
- Confirm missing records are explicit and lifestyle preferences are not treated as defects.
When something goes wrong
Poor scan obscures an amount
Retain the page and request a clearer copy; omit the amount from arithmetic.
Package mixes several properties
Partition by verified property identifier before comparing balances.
A worked example
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT
Request
Synthetic: review a unit’s shared-building documentation.
Inputs
The reserve study lists roof work next year. The budget has no roof line, and later minutes say the project scope is being revised.
Expected result
Link the three records and ask for the revised scope, funding plan and approval. Do not report a definite funding shortfall or an approved assessment.
Run a small pilot
Start small
Use several completed document reviews containing revised budgets and known missing records.
Record the baseline
Record reviewer time, omitted obligations and unsupported statements in the existing process.
Agree success criteria
Agree evidence-coverage and reviewer-correction thresholds before expanding use.
Stop or revise
Pause conclusions if property identity, document dates or material balances cannot be established.
Keep the scope clear
- The workflow does not value the property or recommend buying, lending or insuring.
- Questions remain drafts; disclosure to third parties requires the authorized task scope.
Check before using
A qualified property reviewer verifies liabilities, legal interpretation and reserve adequacy; no purchase recommendation is automated.
Business activities
- Raise capital or evaluate investments
- Inspect and maintain physical assets
FROM A RECIPE TO YOUR WORKFLOW
Bring the company context together.
This workflow needs reliable inputs before it needs a better prompt. Moat8 Vault brings working information into a readable archive for the AI tools you use.
For this recipe: document pack · review questions · ownership basis · expected documents
Start with one recurring task, agree which sources to use, and review the first result with your team.
Discuss this workflow