The question this page answers
What does written methodology comparison establish in this file, and what additional fact could change the next step? Two study providers offer different prices and descriptions of technical work.
Assess what the source proves and what remains unresolved
Identify the original source, who created it and the question it answers. A summary can be useful for navigation but should not conceal missing underlying facts. Record the relevant entity, period and version alongside the document reference.
Apply the check to the situation
One proposal emphasizes a site review while another relies on remote evidence and neither explains missing-record handling.
For this check, identify the document that supports written methodology comparison. Compare it with preparer coordination scope before treating the two records as consistent. A difference may indicate separate events, incomplete history or a correction that has not yet reached every system.
Compare sources before accepting the result
Compare the source with an independent record where one exists. Separate a factual disagreement from an estimate or a professional interpretation. If supporting evidence is unavailable, describe the gap explicitly rather than filling it with an assumed fact.
Handle an incomplete or conflicting file
Ask the reviewer whether the remaining uncertainty changes the decision, its timing or the required procedure. Preserve the limitation and assigned follow-up so a later reader does not mistake an open question for a concluded result.
| Evidence state | Action for this check |
|---|---|
| Supported and consistent | Record the source version and exactly what it establishes about written methodology comparison. Leave the tax conclusion to the responsible reviewer. |
| Missing | Request the underlying evidence and assign a follow-up owner. Identify whether the missing item prevents review or only delays implementation. |
| Conflicting | Keep both sources, describe the difference and request an explanation. Do not silently choose the source producing a preferred outcome. |
| Estimated | Explain the reconstruction method, uncertainty and reviewer approval required before using the estimate. |
| Proposed not applicable | Record why this question does not apply and obtain confirmation where the decision depends on that exclusion. |
The focused reviewer handoff
Submit the source reference, the finding about written methodology comparison, the unresolved difference and the requested decision. If the reviewer approves an action, ask what proves its completion. Continue with property scope definition to check the connected part of the file.
Read the full cost segregation quote methodology guide for the broader context and primary guidance.