Actually you have paraphrased the definition and it does not quite track with the Rule which specifies "quality of all or part of another appraiser's work."
Not to be thick, but how does it not track?
Let's say the report as submitted doesn't include photos. Does that mean I can't check everything else in the report and develop my opinions about the quality of what is there with the proviso that I haven't seen some or all of the exhibits as originally submitted?
Can you imagine what havoc it would create if appraisers started submitting reports falsely stating that their original reports consisted of 25 pages when in fact they only submitted 20 pages? Under an all-or-nothing review requirement those reports would all have to be considered beyond review.
Maybe it's a great report and I agree with everything I see. An all-or-nothing requirement would preclude me from expressing that agreement.
As with everything else in appraising this all comes down to saying what you do and doing what you say. Every assignment we perform has limitations and require the use of assumptions - some assignments just have more of those than others.
If I'm reviewing an incomplete appraisal and the portion I'm looking at is missing something of relevance, I am compelled to assume that the missing item may be in the part that wasn't provided and to state that in my review report. I can't note that the appraisal omitted the item, I can only note that the item wasn't included in the portion I reviewed.
Where reviewers get themselves into trouble with reviewing partials is when they start making unreasonable or unsupportable assumptions, or by not accurately disclosing what they are and are not doing.
