1. Failed-inspection correction source card
Copy/paste fields:
- Customer/job, property address, and permit or inspection number:
- Inspection type: rough-in / final / safety / permit / municipal / utility / HOA / third-party:
- Verified source: inspector report, correction notice, portal status, city email, technician photo, manager note, or contractor response:
- Result: failed / conditional pass / correction required / reinspection needed / unclear / owner review needed:
- Correction items exactly as written in source:
- Who owns correction work: technician / permit coordinator / subcontractor / manager / customer / city/inspector:
- Customer-facing fact we can safely say:
- Internal uncertainty we must not promise:
- Allowed next step: gather photos / clarify code item / quote added scope / schedule correction / schedule reinspection / hold for owner review:
- CRM label: inspection_failed / correction_needed / reinspection_pending / owner_review_needed / schedule_hold / fee_review:
- Owner/reviewer, next check date, and customer update due time:
2. Customer-safe update snippets
Correction notice received: “Hi [Name], quick update: the inspection report lists [verified correction item]. We are reviewing the correction path and will update you by [date/time] after [owner/manager/permit coordinator] confirms the next step.”
Reinspection not ready yet: “We do not want to schedule a reinspection until [correction item] is verified complete. Once that is confirmed, we can review the next available inspection window.”
Possible added scope: “The correction may require [scope item] before reinspection. We are checking whether that affects price, timing, or approvals before we promise the next step.”
Do not say: “it will pass next time,” “the inspector is wrong,” “no extra cost,” “we can fix it today,” “approved by the city,” “warranty covers it,” or “crew is booked” unless the source record and owner review support that wording.
3. AI draft prompt with guardrails
You are helping a local-service business draft a customer update about a failed inspection, correction notice, or reinspection.
Use only the verified facts below. Do not invent code interpretations, inspection pass/fail results, permit approval, fees, warranty coverage, safety status, crew availability, legal advice, customer blame, or city timelines.
Facts I can verify: [paste failed-inspection correction source card]
Create:
1) a short internal owner/manager summary;
2) one customer-safe update under 650 characters;
3) missing facts/questions that must be resolved before promising correction timing, reinspection, price, or approval.
If the source record is unclear, write NEEDS OWNER REVIEW instead of a promise.
STOP AUTOMATION
- Do not let AI interpret building code, safety compliance, warranty coverage, permit rules, or inspection outcomes without qualified review.
- Stop if the message involves legal/code interpretation, safety, fees, refunds, contract deadlines, warranty coverage, or starting/continuing work before approval.
- Do not invent pass dates, inspector intent, customer fault, city timelines, or crew scheduling to make the update sound complete.
- Escalate to an owner or manager when the correction notice, quote scope, warranty terms, customer expectations, and crew schedule conflict.
4. Weekly review questions
- Which failed inspections had no assigned correction owner or customer update due time?
- Which correction causes repeat: missing photos, inaccessible area, wrong material, incomplete scope, permit mismatch, utility requirement, or customer-supplied part?
- Which customer-safe wording reduced “what happened?” follow-up without blaming the customer, inspector, or technician?
- Should Local Lead Rescue add an inspection-correction lane with source proof, correction owner, reinspection status, customer update cadence, and STOP AUTOMATION rules?
Product bridge: Pair this with Local Lead Rescue permit-delay, permit-inspection scheduling, work-order authorization, parts backorder, and warranty update resources so inspection failures become tracked correction workflows instead of unsupported customer promises.