A recent blog post on the website of Valuology talks about ways to improve engagement letters and how to better connect them with the resulting valuation report. A common failing is that the report does not adequately explain the outcome of the investigations set out in the engagement letter or highlight any initial assumptions of the valuer that are no longer appropriate or need modification, the post says. “Very few reports that I see do this adequately, let alone well,” writes Chris Thorne, former chairman of the International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC). The report should not merely “recite limitations” that are in the engagement letter or, worse, introduce limitations or caveats that are inconsistent with those in the engagement letter, he says. Thorne is now a director at Valuology, a company that helps organizations and firms ensure that their valuation policies and procedures are best in class and reflect globally accepted standards of professionalism.