How Do Surveyors Evidence Professional Judgement?

A reflection on professional judgement, inspection records and why the thinking behind a survey may matter as much as the inspection itself.

Last year, I attended a conference where one of the panels discussed the forthcoming Home Survey Standard.

One of the speakers said something that stuck with me:

“…when you’re out taking a walk in the evening, reflecting on the report you have written, you’ll know if you are a good surveyor.”

It stayed with me partly because I worry about surveyors who struggle to switch off and question whether they are ‘good enough’. But it also made me think about something deeper — what being a good surveyor actually means, and how we recognise it.

Recently, I watched an RICS webinar, and the final slide caught my attention. It referenced research into the “forgetting curve” and studies suggesting that human memory becomes unreliable over time. The implication seemed to be that it may be better to sign off a report quickly after inspection, before memory begins to fade.

At first glance, the argument sounds reasonable. If memory fades, surely writing the report quickly makes sense.

But reflective thought is not really about speed. It is about reasoning, professional judgement and, importantly, context. It is also the part of the process that becomes most visible when survey work is later examined in a complaint, an ombudsman decision or, in some cases, before the courts.

The case often cited when discussing memory reliability is Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd. The judgment highlights that human memory can be unreliable and influenced by later events. The conclusion drawn by the courts, however, is not that professionals should rely on memory more quickly, but that courts place greater weight on contemporaneous documents than on recollection.

For surveyors, that reinforces the importance of good inspection records. It does not necessarily follow that the analytical stage of reporting should be rushed — even though many surveyors will recognise the commercial pressures that can push work in that direction.

Surveyors don’t work from memory

A competent inspection relies on contemporaneous records. Notes, photographs, videos, measurements and observations recorded at the time form the basis of the advice later given to the client.

When a surveyor sits down to write the report, those records provide the evidence from which conclusions are drawn. The report itself is not simply a recollection of the inspection; it is the analysis of what was observed and what it means.

And when there is a note on file, in whatever form, that demonstrates the surveyor’s thinking and conclusions, it becomes extremely valuable if the work is later scrutinised.

I see this regularly through my work supporting complaint investigations and professional practice reviews. When the reasoning behind a decision has been captured at the time, it often provides the clearest evidence of professional judgement.

Because that analytical stage is where experience and professional judgement come into play.

Most surveyors will recognise the practical reality. You return to the office after a long day with a report still to write. Or perhaps work volumes mean the report is written later than planned and suddenly all the photos start to look the same.

That is precisely why good contemporaneous records matter.

But those records are still only the starting point.

The thinking part of surveying

What happens next is often the hardest part to describe.

You begin writing the report and, as you work through the observations, the wider picture starts to emerge. A crack that seemed minor at first may raise questions when considered alongside other observations. A pattern of damp might suggest a cause. A roof covering that appeared serviceable during inspection might require a fuller explanation once the building's wider context is considered.

In other words, the thinking often happens while writing the report.

Increasingly, however, reports may be assembled in stages. Observations are recorded on-site via digital field notes and drop-down options; research may be conducted later, and dictation can be added while waiting for the next appointment.

Technology can undoubtedly make parts of the process more efficient, and AI may assist with organising information or identifying patterns. But the core task remains the same.

Surveying is not simply about recording what was seen. It is about interpreting what those observations mean for the client.

And that is the part I sometimes worry we risk losing sight of - what the client actually wants and, importantly, needs to know.

It is the difference between producing a report that anyone can read and providing your client with professional written advice.

The Home Survey Standard and professional judgement

Which brings me to the Home Survey Standard.

The HSS places a strong emphasis on consistency, structure and clarity for consumers. That is undoubtedly a positive step for the profession. At the same time, the standard still relies on something that cannot be standardised: professional judgement.

Surveyors must decide whether observations are significant, whether further investigation is required, how risks should be explained to the client and what level of urgency is appropriate. These decisions cannot be reduced to templates or checklists; they depend on experience, analysis and the ability to think through what the evidence means.

The suggestion that surveyors might sign off reports quickly because memory fades sits more comfortably within a production model of surveying than a judgement model. It implies inspection followed immediately by a report, whereas many surveyors would recognise the process as inspection, evidence, reflection, analysis and then advice.

That distinction matters.

Reflective thought and reasoning may be the hardest parts of the process to evidence, but they are also what build trust between surveyor and client.  In simple terms, reflective thought in surveying is the process of reviewing observations, evidence and context to reach a reasoned professional judgement that can be explained and justified.

A conversation worth having

As surveying evolves with increasing standardisation, digital reporting systems, and the potential influence of AI,  the process of producing reports will almost certainly become faster and more structured.

There will undoubtedly be benefits.

But surveying has always been more than a structured inspection process. It is a profession built on analysis, interpretation and judgement, and, as valuers know, parts of it remain as much art as science.

Which leaves me with a question.

If professional judgement depends on reflective thought, how should surveyors evidence their thinking and reasoning?

It feels like a conversation worth having now, while the profession still has the opportunity to shape the answer, rather than later, when the question is being tested in court. 

Because once a case reaches court, the profession no longer controls how these questions are answered.

Until next time,
Marion

If you found this useful, you’re welcome to share it with others who might appreciate it.

Surveying, Actually articles are shared by email when new posts are published. You can subscribe to Surveying, Actually here.