Assumption and Exclusion Review Checklist

Read the notes at the end of every scope document, since assumptions and exclusions are usually gathered there rather than written beside the item they affect.

The item list is the part an owner reads carefully; the notes are the part that decides what the item list actually means.

Note where an exclusion appears only in an email or covering letter rather than in the document itself, and ask whether it forms part of the described works.

Whether wording in a covering message forms part of an agreement is a legal question for your own adviser, not something to settle by reading it yourself.

Copy every assumption and exclusion into a single list of your own, in the original wording, so you are not comparing several documents from memory.

Assumptions read differently in isolation than they do gathered together, where the pattern of what somebody chose not to take on becomes visible.

Mark any wording broad enough to cover almost anything, such as subject to site conditions, and write it down as something to ask about rather than something to accept.

Broad wording is not necessarily unreasonable, but it moves an unknown quantity of risk without either side having discussed which risk.

Ask whether the standard terms attached to a document contain further exclusions beyond those listed in the scope, and read them alongside the scope notes.

The interaction between attached standard terms and a written scope is a matter for your own legal adviser to explain before you commit.

Note whether the document states which drawings or information the assumptions were made against, and record the issue markings of those documents.

An assumption made against an early drawing may already be out of date by the time you read it, and only the reference tells you.

For each exclusion, write down in your own words what would still have to happen for the finished work to be usable, and who you imagine doing it.

Turning an exclusion into a task with a name attached is what reveals whether it is trivial or a project of its own.

Ask whether each item is excluded because another party is doing it or because nobody has been asked to do it at all.

These sound identical in a document and are entirely different in practice, and only the party who wrote the exclusion can say which it is.

Note the exclusions that only matter at the very end, such as final connections or reinstatement, since those are the easiest to accept early and the hardest to arrange late.

An exclusion whose consequence arrives only at the end feels theoretical while you are reading it and very concrete when the work stops short.

Write down which exclusions would need somebody to come back after other trades have finished, and ask how that return visit is arranged and by whom.

Second visits are the work most often left dangling, because the party who would make them has already left the property.

Check whether an exclusion removes something you had understood to be included from a conversation, and raise that difference in writing straight away.

Where a written exclusion contradicts what you were told, ask for the position in writing and take any disagreement to your own legal adviser.

Ask what an exclusion for anything not shown on the drawings means in practice while the drawings are still being developed.

How a scope responds to developing drawings should be explained by the appointed professionals before the wording is accepted.

Walk the property holding your assumption list and note every statement about the building that already looks doubtful from where you are standing.

Owners know their own property better than anybody who has visited it briefly, and that knowledge is most useful read against specific wording.

Look for assumptions that existing structure, surfaces or supplies are sound, and record each one as a question rather than a fact you now know.

Whether existing construction or supplies are sound can only be established by suitably qualified professionals who have examined them.

Note assumptions about what is behind a wall, under a floor or above a ceiling, and ask what evidence each of those rests on.

What lies behind a finish must be established by opening up under the direction of qualified professionals, never predicted from the room side.

Check any assumption about the age, construction or history of the property against paperwork you already hold from earlier work on it.

Owners frequently hold documents from previous work that quietly contradict an assumption nobody thought to question.

Note any assumption that the property is free of anything hazardous, and ask who is arranging for that to be established before work disturbs anything.

Anything potentially hazardous in an existing building must be established by suitably qualified specialists before any work disturbs it.

Record where an assumption describes the property in a way that contradicts another document you hold, and put both in front of the party who wrote it.

Contradictions between documents are easy for an owner to spot and almost impossible for the parties to see, because each holds only their own.

Note assumptions about vehicle access, parking and how far materials have to be carried, and compare each against what actually happens outside your property.

Access assumptions are written from a map or a short visit and are the ones an owner can test most easily and most usefully.

Check assumptions about when work may take place against anything that restricts it where you live, and confirm locally what applies.

Restrictions on when work may take place vary by locality and by property; confirm what applies with the relevant local authority rather than relying on a scope document.

Note whether the work is assumed to happen in an empty property, and write down what changes if you are living there while it goes on.

An assumption of vacant possession sits quietly in the notes and changes almost every practical aspect of how the work proceeds.

Ask what has been assumed about the use of your electricity, water, drainage and washing facilities during the work, and record what was agreed.

Use of household supplies is assumed by nearly everybody and written down by almost nobody, which makes it an easy source of friction.

Record assumptions about scaffolding, platforms or access equipment, including who obtains permission to place them and where they are assumed to stand.

Placing access equipment on land or pavement you do not control usually needs permission; confirm locally what applies before assuming it can be done.

Note any assumption that neighbouring land, a shared drive or a communal area can be used, and ask who is arranging that with the people concerned.

Rights over neighbouring or shared land are a legal matter for your own adviser and the parties who hold those rights.

List every assumption that begins with somebody else having finished first, and write down who that somebody actually is on your project.

An assumption about preceding work is a dependency in disguise, and dependencies without names are the ones that fail quietly.

Note assumptions that a decision from you will be available at a given point in the work, and write down what each of those decisions actually requires from you.

Owners are frequently assumed to be able to decide instantly on things that in practice need a visit, a sample or a household discussion.

Ask what has been assumed about information still to come from a designer or a manufacturer, and who is responsible for chasing it.

Information assumed to arrive has no owner unless somebody is named, and everybody assumes it is being chased by whoever needs it most.

Note assumptions that a consent or approval is already in place, and confirm the position with the relevant authority rather than with the party who wrote the assumption.

The status of any consent must be confirmed with the relevant authority and your own professionals, never taken from a scope note.

Write down assumptions about materials being obtainable, and ask what the fallback would be and who would choose it if they are not.

Where a substitution might be needed, ask the appointed professionals to confirm what would be acceptable in that position before it is chosen on site.

Ask which assumptions depend on another party working to the same information you hold, and how you would find out if they were not.

Two parties working confidently from different issues of the same document is the most ordinary way an assumption fails.

Line the exclusions from each document up side by side, because two documents describing the same job can differ almost entirely in what they leave out.

Item lists tend to converge because they are drawn from the same brief; exclusion lists reveal how differently each party read it.

Note each item that one party excludes and another includes, and ask both what they understood the scope to be at that point.

A disagreement between two documents about one item usually means the brief was ambiguous, which is worth fixing before anybody starts.

Write down anything excluded by everybody, since work that nobody has taken on is work still waiting for somebody to be asked.

Universal exclusions are the clearest signal that a task has fallen outside the brief entirely rather than been overlooked by one party.

Check whether the documents were prepared from the same information, because exclusions written against different drawings cannot sensibly be compared.

Ask each party which drawings and information they worked from before treating their documents as describing the same thing.

Ask each party to name the exclusion that owners most often miss on work of this kind, and record what each of them says.

People who do this work constantly know exactly which line owners skip, and most will say so plainly when asked directly.

Avoid reading a shorter exclusion list as a sign of wider coverage, since some parties simply write less down rather than taking more on.

A short notes section can mean a carefully considered scope or an undiscussed one, and the wording alone will not tell you which.

Write against every assumption whether you accept it, dispute it or cannot tell, and keep everything in the third group as an open question.

The cannot tell group is the useful one, because it is the list of things you are carrying without having decided to.

Record where you accepted an assumption because somebody explained it aloud, and ask for that explanation in writing before you rely on it.

An explanation given in conversation does not change the written document; ask the party to confirm it in writing.

Note which assumptions you accepted knowing they might not hold, so a later change is a foreseen event rather than a surprise.

Writing down what you knowingly accepted is what allows you to respond calmly later instead of relitigating the original conversation.

Keep your response list attached to the document it refers to, including that document's date and reference, so a revised version does not silently replace it.

Responses written against a superseded document look authoritative and can be quietly wrong once the scope has been reissued.

Ask for a revised document where an assumption has been agreed to be wrong, rather than relying on a message that corrects it.

Whether a corrected assumption changes the agreement is a question for your own legal adviser and the party who issued the document.

Write down anything you were told is not really an exclusion in practice, along with who said it and when they said it.

Reassurances of this kind are usually sincere and rarely written anywhere, which makes them worth capturing while the words are fresh.

Ask what the route is for telling you that an assumption has not held, and who is entitled to give you that news.

Bad news reaches owners through whoever happens to be on site unless a route has been agreed, which is how it arrives distorted.

Write down what evidence you would want to see when you are told that a site condition differs from what was assumed.

What counts as adequate evidence of a differing condition should be settled with your appointed professionals before it is needed.

Ask whether the consequence of a failed assumption is treated as a change to the works, and where in your agreement that process is described.

How your agreement treats a differing condition is a matter for your own legal adviser to explain before you need to rely on it.

Note which failed assumptions would stop work in the meantime and which would not, and ask who decides that at the moment it happens.

Deciding in advance who has authority to pause work removes the worst improvisation from an already difficult conversation.

Record every occasion on which an assumption was found not to hold, even where it caused no difficulty, since the pattern says something useful.

A run of small failed assumptions usually means the documents were prepared without enough information, which is worth knowing early.

Ask what happens to an exclusion once the excluded work turns out to be unavoidable, and who would carry it out at that point.

How excluded work is picked up once it becomes unavoidable should be agreed in writing with the parties and checked with your own adviser.