A marine surveyor's clients never see the survey. They see the report. The lender funds against it, the underwriter binds against it, the buyer renegotiates with it, and if anything ever goes wrong, lawyers read it line by line. It is the product, the invoice justification, and the liability shield in one document, and our 2026 research found it consumes about 4.25 hours per survey when written by hand.
Here is the structure that has become the de facto standard for recreational Condition & Value reports, and the craft decisions inside each section.
The standard C&V report skeleton
- Cover and report identification. Vessel name, hull identification number (HIN), report number and date, client, survey date and location, and the type of survey performed.
- Vessel particulars. Builder, model, year, LOA/beam/draft, displacement, hull material and construction, engine make/model/serial/hours, tankage, and documentation or registration numbers. Accuracy here is non-negotiable: the HIN and engine serials anchor the whole document.
- Scope and limitations. The most under-written and most litigated section. State what kind of survey this was, what standards it references, whether the boat was hauled, whether a sea trial occurred, what was inaccessible (tankage under sole, keel bolts, behind fixed liners), and what was excluded (internal engine condition, rig aloft unless contracted). Write it for this boat; recycled boilerplate that mentions systems this vessel does not have tells a jury you were not paying attention. Your E&O insurer would rather you spend ten more minutes here than anywhere else.
- Systems sections. The body of the report, typically: hull and structure; deck and superstructure; steering; propulsion and machinery installation; fuel system; electrical (AC and DC); plumbing and through-hulls; ground tackle; safety equipment; electronics; cosmetics. For each: what exists, its observed condition, and any findings.
- Findings and recommendations. The section everyone reads first, prioritized (see below).
- Valuation. Opinion of fair market value and replacement cost, with your reasoning at least sketched: condition, equipment, and market comparables.
- Surveyor's certification. Attestation, qualifications and designations, signature, and the standard statement that the report reflects conditions on the date of survey.
- Photographs. Integrated or appended, captioned, and keyed to findings.
Writing findings that hold up
A defensible finding has four parts, in order:
Observation → Location → Standard → Recommendation
Compare:
Weak: "Some moisture noted in deck. Recommend monitoring."
Strong: "Elevated moisture readings (18–24%) recorded in the foredeck core within a ~2 ft radius of the windlass mounting fasteners; percussion sounding in the same area produced a dull report consistent with core saturation. Deck core moisture intrusion at fastener penetrations reduces structural integrity of the cored laminate. Recommend removal of windlass, inspection of core, drying or replacement of affected core, and rebedding of all foredeck hardware. Priority B."
The strong version tells the reader exactly what was observed, where, why it matters, and what to do, and it would read exactly as well in a deposition three years later. Where a finding maps to a standard, cite it: ABYC chapter references (E-11 for electrical, H-24/H-33 for fuel, H-27 for seacocks), NFPA 302, or the CFR for federally required equipment. Citations convert your opinion into an application of recognized authority.
Prioritization: the A/B/C system
Most surveyors tier recommendations, and insurers have learned to read the tiers:
- Priority A: deficiencies affecting safety of vessel or crew, or items that make the boat uninsurable until corrected. Failed navigation lights, non-marine wiring in the bilge, fuel leaks, missing flame arrestor, inoperative bilge pumps.
- Priority B: deficiencies to correct in the near term that do not immediately endanger the vessel. The wet foredeck above, aging hoses, tired standing rigging.
- Priority C: maintenance items and monitor-and-plan observations.
Whatever system you use, define it in the report and apply it identically every time. Consistency across your body of work is itself a legal asset.
Valuation without hand-waving
State fair market value and replacement cost, and show at least the shape of your reasoning: base market for the model and year, adjusted for condition, equipment, and regional market. You do not need a full appraisal narrative in a C&V report, but a bare number invites the dispute; a reasoned number settles it.
The efficiency problem, honestly
Every experienced surveyor eventually notices the same thing: the skeleton never changes, the standards references repeat, the limitations language repeats, and yet the report still takes four hours, because assembling, transcribing field notes, placing photos, and wording findings carefully is real work even when the structure is fixed.
The traditional answers are Word templates and form-filling software, which speed up the data entry and still leave you writing the narrative. The current answer is AI drafting trained on your own prior reports: field notes, photos, and voice memos go in; a complete draft in your structure and your voice comes out, with findings pre-worded for your review and every judgment still yours to confirm. That is the product Worksmith Marine ships in August 2026, and it exists because the profession's own math (4.25 hours per report) demanded it. Whichever tool you use, the goal is the same: your expertise should go into the findings, not the formatting.
A closing checklist
- HIN, serials, and particulars verified against the vessel, not the listing.
- Scope and limitations written for this boat.
- Every finding: observation, location, standard, prioritized recommendation.
- Priorities defined in the report and used consistently.
- Photos captioned and keyed to findings.
- Valuation reasoned, not asserted.
- Proofread as if opposing counsel is the second reader. Someday they might be.