05/08/2026
With the addition of discrete weighting labels (most, less, or no weight) in UAD 3.6, I think we need to step back and look at what it means to reconcile ADJUSTED sales prices.
I think that the default setting for appraisers, users of appraisals, and the makers of appraisal policy has been to confuse the recognition of the UNADJUSTED similarity of a sale with how to treat the ADJUSTED price of that sale in the reconciliation.
The unadjusted and adjusted prices reflect two fundamentally different bundles of property attributes. The unadjusted bundle is that represented by the comparable sale, and the adjusted bundle is that represented by the subject. That is hugely important to recognize before moving into reconciliation.
In short, the adjusted sales prices are no longer supposed to encode dissimilarity. The whole point of quantitative analysis is to remove the price impact of those dissimilarities before reconciliation.
So, the question becomes: How should we reconcile? That depends largely upon the definition of market value.
If the definition of market value includes the word "probable", then you must explicitly deal with probability within the appraisal. There is no better place to do that than the reconciliation.
This is a brief discussion of the role of sales comparison reconciliation. This video challenges the conventional narrative around reconciliation.