How to Read a TrueViewly Property Risk Report

Read the report as a set of signals

Look for the modules and indicators that may be relevant to the property and the decision at hand. Consider the context across categories rather than relying on any isolated item.

• Review hydrology and flood-related context.
• Consider terrain, weather, geologic, soil, and environmental context where relevant.
• Note any caveats, sources, and gaps before drawing conclusions.

Distinguish additional evidence from scored risk

Source availability labels are not risk bands. Regional NOAA records, storm footprints, levees, NFIP history and community records, dams, karst, local Vs30, radon, UST/releases and conditional public-water monitoring provide supporting facts without changing current scores or weights.

• Available means the source returned evidence. It does not mean insured, eligible or safe.
• No match means a usable record was not established; outside coverage describes a source limitation; unavailable describes a lookup or data-readiness problem.
• Ambiguous community boundaries require jurisdiction confirmation. Missing community IDs never mean nonparticipation.
• Nearby UST records do not establish contamination. Confirm a candidate water system's PWSID before interpreting its dated UCMR records; non-detects are not zero concentrations.
• WUI is surrounding census-block context, not parcel vegetation. Flame length and exceedance percentages are conditional on fire, not the annual chance of a fire. These supporting panels are separate from scored wildfire risk.
• SLOSH values are high-tide hurricane scenarios, not annual flood probabilities or surveyed building depths. Post-fire basin probabilities require the stated rainfall condition and assessment date; neither source is a live warning or a new score input.
• Read liquefaction investigation zones and tsunami planning areas with local geotechnical and evacuation guidance. A mapping-coverage footprint is not a hazard boundary.
• Compare the report date with each source snapshot. Historical reports retain their original evidence and do not update automatically.
• Nearby severe-weather scoring history, regional storm summaries and exact-point polygons have different periods and geographies. A missing county year or footprint does not mean no hazard, and a mapped polygon does not prove property damage.
• Review recommendations in the common recommendations section and record professional follow-up separately.

Turn signals into follow-up questions

The most useful outcome is a short list of questions that can be answered through the correct next source or specialist.

• Which official map, local record, or disclosure should be checked?
• Is an insurance, inspection, survey, engineering, environmental, or legal review appropriate?
• What is known, what needs confirmation, and who will verify it?

Keep the report with the property record

Save the report alongside your deal or listing notes. A documented first-pass review makes collaboration easier and gives later reviewers the context behind the follow-up work.

• Share the report with the relevant team members.
• Record follow-up decisions separately from the screening output.
• Use a new report if the address, project scope, or available information changes materially.

Sources and further reading

• FEMA Community Status Book
• FEMA NFIP community-boundary dataset
• FEMA Community Rating System
• USACE National Inventory of Dams
• USGS karst compilation, OFR 2014-1156
• USGS Global Vs30 Mosaic
• EPA Map of Radon Zones

Source publications and live agency pages may differ from the snapshot used in a report. Check the report's source dates and confirm material findings through the responsible authority.