- Deliverable Diagnostic
Every report carries your reputation. See what your review missed.
Quire examines technical reports your firm has already issued to find confirmed errors and inconsistencies. You’ll see exactly where they appear, how often they occur, and what your results reveal about your report process.
- Complimentary
- Confidential
- No platform change required
Most firms are confident in their reports. The finished work deserves a closer look.
In conversations with more than 100 deliverable-driven firms, teams rated their report quality 8.2 out of 10 on average. In a separate review of issued reports across geotechnical, environmental, and property condition work, 9 in 10 contained at least one confirmed issue.
These findings don’t mean the technical work was wrong. They show that conflicting details can survive review and reach a client in the final document. The Deliverable Diagnostic lets you see whether that is happening in your reports, instead of relying on an assumption about their quality.
8.2/10
average self-rating for report quality
Self-rating reported by firms in conversations with Quire
of 181 issued reports reviewed had at least one confirmed issue
One document carries three kinds of risk.
A small error can create a much bigger problem. A conflicting detail may be quick to correct, but its consequences depend on who finds it and when. It can affect how clients see your firm, how confidently they rely on the report, and how much senior time is spent correcting work that was already delivered.
Clients can’t grade your engineering. They can grade your report.
When page 2 and page 9 disagree, every other number in the report, and the person who signed it, comes into question.
A report that contradicts itself is hard to stand behind.
Reports are issued to be relied upon. When something goes wrong, the error is the first thing a careful reader finds.
Every error caught late is senior time spent twice.
Reissues, re-reviews and client calls nobody budgeted for come straight out of margin on fixed-fee work.
The errors that pass final review
Each example is a written illustration of a confirmed pattern. The details are invented so that no firm’s report is quoted, and each one has a fix upstream.
Found in 66% of reports reviewed
The EPA got renamed halfway through the report.
Records maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were reviewed.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Association (EPA) database identified one listing.
Reused boilerplate carried the wrong name forward.
Approved language is inserted from a maintained library, never retyped.
Standard editions disagree
The scope identifies one edition of a technical standard, while the conclusion says the assessment followed another edition.
Why it matters: The report leaves its stated technical basis inconsistent.
An acronym names the wrong concept
Reusable language expands an acronym as an information system, while the supplied reference defines that acronym as the name of a law.
Why it matters: The text confuses two related but distinct technical references.
Found in 53% of reports reviewed
One site visit. Two dates.
A site visit was conducted on May 14, 2026 to observe current conditions.
The site visit was completed on May 21, 2026 by the project assessor.
Seven pages apart, signed by the same reviewer.
Each project detail is entered once and appears the same everywhere.
Project identifiers disagree
The report cover and supporting calculations display different project identifiers for the same work.
Why it matters: Readers cannot readily establish that the supporting material belongs to the report.
Visit dates disagree
A summary table and the methods section give different dates for the same site visit.
Why it matters: The report leaves a basic event detail unresolved.
Found in 53% of reports reviewed
More soil came out than the hole was deep.
Sample 5, Boring B-3: interval of 2.0 ft.
Sample 5, Boring B-3: 2.4 ft of soil recovered.
A transcription slip, carried from the field log into the appendix by hand.
Field and lab data land in the log and the table at once, from the source.
Program counts disagree
The scope and results sections give different totals for the same boring program, without explaining a subset or change.
Why it matters: Readers cannot confidently tell how much work the report covers.
A measurement has no unit
A groundwater-depth statement provides a number but omits its unit, and no nearby heading or note supplies one.
Why it matters: The numerical statement cannot be interpreted reliably without guessing.
Found in 42% of reports reviewed
Photos filed in an appendix that doesn’t exist.
Appendix C: Photographic record.
The photographic record is provided in Appendix D.
The report ends at Appendix C.
Section, figure and appendix references update as the report changes.
An appendix reference points elsewhere
The text directs readers to an appendix for a questionnaire, but that appendix contains prior reports. The questionnaire is filed elsewhere.
Why it matters: Readers are directed away from the evidence they need.
Promised results are absent
The report says additional laboratory results follow the exploration logs, but the supplied package contains no such results there.
Why it matters: Readers cannot find the support the report promises.
Give your reviewers less to catch.
Quire TRM™ helps teams carry accurate project information and firm standards from the first draft through final review, reducing the manual handoffs where report defects can take hold.
See how your reports score.
Every finding confirmed on the page, benchmarked, and walked through with your team.
Request your Deliverable Diagnostic
- Complimentary and confidential
- No platform change required
- The findings are yours to keep
Share a set of issued reports
Recent work from one service line. We agree on the scope with you.
We review and benchmark them
Every finding is confirmed against the report itself, then scored against every diagnostic to date.
Receive your report card
Findings per report, the categories they fall into, and where each one appears.
Walk through it with our team
A short working session on what the results mean and what would prevent them.
Frequently Asked Questions
Only Quire’s solutions team. Reports are never shared, quoted or used as examples without written permission.
No. The Diagnostic reads reports written in any tool, and the findings are yours whether or not you ever talk to us about the platform.
A short call to agree on scope, then pulling the reports together. Most firms share a set from one service line, and our team will tell you how many make a meaningful benchmark. A member of our team replies within two business days.
Only two statements in the same report that cannot both be true, confirmed against the document. Engineering and scientific judgment is never scored.
Benchmark figures combine completed Deliverable Diagnostics across geotechnical, Phase I ESA and property condition assessment work. Each diagnostic reviews reports the firm has already issued to clients. A report set is the collection reviewed together in one diagnostic.
An issue is counted only when two statements in the same report cannot both be true, and only after it has been confirmed against the document. Judgment calls about the engineering or science are not counted. Categories overlap, so category percentages are not additive.
Firms rate their own report quality 8.2 out of 10 on average, self-reported in conversations with Quire’s team. That figure and the diagnostic data are separate sources. These results describe the reports in the current dataset and are not a representative sample of the industry. Benchmark data expands as additional diagnostics are completed.
Your reports already have a score. Find out what it is.
One set of issued reports. Every error, on the page where it appears.