What Personal Property Appraisers Need to Know About the New Proposed AO‑41: Using Technology in Appraisal Assignments

The Appraisal Standards Board (ASB) has released the First Exposure Draft of a brand‑new Advisory Opinion: AO‑41 — Use of Technology in an Appraisal or Appraisal Review Assignment. While past guidance touched on Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) and computer‑assisted tools, this proposed AO represents a major modernization of USPAP guidance around technology — especially artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, statistical modeling, automation, and emerging digital tools.

For personal property appraisers, this is particularly important. Our work increasingly involves online data sources, cataloging tools, statistical models, and even generative AI for research and drafting support. AO‑41 clarifies what’s allowed, what’s risky, and what responsibilities remain entirely with the appraiser.

Here are the key takeaways every personal property appraiser needs to understand.

---

1. Tools Can Help — But the Appraiser Is 100% Responsible

AO‑41 emphasizes a simple but powerful principle:

👉 A tool cannot comply with USPAP. Only the appraiser can.

That means:

• AI, regression tools, databases, or automated models can assist,
• but they can never make appraisal judgments,
• and their output is not an assignment result until the appraiser analyzes it.

If you rely on a tool’s output without applying your own appraisal judgment, that may be a violation of the ETHICS RULE or COMPETENCY RULE.

For personal property appraisers — especially those dealing with art, antiques, collectibles, or machinery & equipment — this means platforms that catalog comparable sales, automated pricing tools, or AI summarization tools must be treated as inputs, not conclusions.

---

2. You Must Understand the Tool Enough to Judge Its Output

USPAP does not require you to know how an algorithm is coded.
But AO‑41 states you must:

• Understand what the tool does
• Understand its limitations
• Know when its output is credible or flawed
• Verify whether its results make sense for your subject and market

For example:

• A generative AI system may omit recent data or “hallucinate.”
• An online auction data system may use AI classification you cannot see.
• A statistical tool may produce a correlation that is mathematically correct but not reflective of the market you’re valuing.

You must be competent to recognize when a tool is accurate enough — or when it is misleading.

---

3. Confidentiality Still Applies — Even in AI Tools

AO‑41 reinforces that confidential information must never be entered into a system that cannot guarantee protection.

Examples of confidential information for personal property appraisers:

• High‑value collection inventories
• Estate or trust documents
• Security‑sensitive provenance details
• Client‑provided private notes
• Assignment results

Generative AI tools raise a major question:
Does the system store or train on user input?

AO‑41 makes clear:

👉 If you cannot protect confidential information, you cannot enter it into the tool.

This is especially critical for cloud‑based AI tools that transmit data to servers outside your control.

---

4. When Must You Disclose the Use of a Tool in a Report?

USPAP does not require disclosure every time you:

• Use a spreadsheet
• Use grammar‑checking tools
• Use software for formatting
• Use tools that only support report writing

Disclosure is required only when:

• Omitting it would make the report misleading, or
• The tool used was not fully transparent and influenced your assignment results.

Examples where disclosure may be required:

• You use a generative AI tool to suggest an adjustment for condition.
• You use a statistical model to quantify depreciation patterns in a specialty market.

Examples where disclosure is not required:

• You use Excel to calculate averages.
• You use AI to check for typos or format paragraphs.

AO‑41 focuses on clarity and not misleading intended users — not a list of required technology disclosures.

---

5. If You Rely on a Tool’s Output, You Must Document It

For workfile requirements, AO‑41 is very clear:

If you rely on a tool’s output:

You must keep:

• The tool’s output
• Prompts or inputs you used (for AI tools)
• Supporting documentation showing how you verified the results
• Your reasoning for accepting or rejecting the output

If you reviewed but did not rely on the tool:

Documentation depends on:

• Peer expectations
• Intended user expectations
• Whether the review influenced your conclusions

In short: if the tool affected your analysis, document it.

---

6. Client Restrictions on Technology Cannot Prevent Credible Results

If a client prohibits certain tools — like AI — you must evaluate whether you can still produce a credible assignment.

Example:

A collector forbids AI tools, but the only market database available uses AI classification.
If that restriction prevents credible analysis, you may need to:

• Negotiate a new scope of work
• Or decline the assignment

Your obligation to produce credible results always comes first.

---

7. AO‑41 Will Replace Old AVM and Tech Opinions

The ASB intends to retire:

• AO‑18 (Automated Valuation Models)
• AO‑37 (Computer-Assisted Valuation Tools)

AO‑41 replaces them with a single, modern, technology‑wide guidance document that applies across real, personal, and intangible property.

---

What This Means for Personal Property Appraisers

This proposed Advisory Opinion acknowledges the reality of modern practice:

• Appraisers use digital tools constantly.
• The volume of available data has exploded.
• AI is accelerating workflows — but also adding risk.

AO‑41 does not restrict technology — it simply reinforces that:

• Tools cannot replace judgment
• Appraisers must understand limitations
• Confidentiality is non‑negotiable
• Credibility is always the standard

As technology evolves, so must appraisal practice.