Roof Reinspection Guide for Contractors

• →Missed damage — carrier estimate does not include hail, wind, or impact damage documented in field photos.
• →Incorrect scope — repair boundaries, removal squares, or replacement areas do not match actual damage extent.
• →Additional affected slopes — damage extends to planes not included in carrier sketch or line items.
• →Repairability concerns — brittle material, seal strip failure, or collateral damage risk not addressed in approved scope.
• →Matching concerns — discontinued shingles, color mismatch, or visible elevation differences not reflected in estimate.
• →Code-related omissions — jurisdiction-required underlayment, ventilation, or fastening upgrades missing from carrier scope.
• →New documentation after initial inspection — additional photos, measurements, or material identification gathered since carrier visit supports expanded scope.

Request reinspection when documentation supports additional scope — not as a substitute for building the indexed packet first.

• →Overview photos — wide elevations of all visible planes captured and labeled before reinspection request.
• →Slope-specific photos — each plane documented with consistent naming in file metadata.
• →Close-up damage photos — hail impacts, creases, lifted tabs, and seal failures with context shots.
• →Material identification — manufacturer, color, style, age, and weathering recorded with supporting imagery.
• →Repairability notes — test observations and collateral damage documentation when partial repair is in dispute.
• →Matching documentation — availability research and elevation photos when matching concerns are part of the file.
• →Scope comparison — carrier estimate lines indexed to field photos and measurement data.

See the Roof Matching Documentation Guide and Roof Repairability Documentation Guide for detailed standards on those documentation types.

• →Missing slopes — identify planes with documented damage absent from carrier sketch or line items.
• →Missing elevations — map street-visible and primary viewing angles where damage exists but scope omits replacement.
• →Missing accessories — ridge cap, valley metal, drip edge, pipe boots, and ventilation items not on estimate.
• →Missing code items — ice and water shield, starter strip, or ventilation upgrades required by jurisdiction.
• →Missing labor — steep/high modifiers, detach-and-reset, or protection items documented but not charged.
• →Incorrect repair assumptions — carrier approves partial repair where field conditions support expanded scope.

• →Hail impacts — photograph impact marks with chalk or contrast aid; note density and test square results where applicable.
• →Wind creases — capture creased or folded tabs along wind-exposed edges and ridge lines.
• →Lifted shingles — document tabs with broken seal strips or uplift damage on affected courses.
• →Broken seals — close-up photos of seal strip failure on shingles that must be disturbed during repair.
• →Collateral damage — photograph adjacent courses, valleys, and flashings affected during damage assessment.
• →Soft metals — dented vents, flashings, gutters, and downspouts with overview and detail shots.
• →Gutters and accessories — document damage to drainage and roof-mounted components.
• →Vents and flashing — capture pipe boots, chimney flashings, and penetration details.
• →Interior damage if applicable — ceiling stains, attic decking, or insulation damage linked to roof penetration.

• →Discontinued shingles — attach manufacturer discontinuation proof and comparable product difference notes.
• →Mismatched materials — elevation photos showing visible differences between repair area and adjacent slopes.
• →Brittle shingles — test observations and failed lift photos supporting repair limitations.
• →Seal strip failure — document lifted tabs that no longer reseal on aged or weathered courses.
• →Granule loss — close-up photos of exposed asphalt on shingles that must be disturbed.
• →Collateral damage from attempted repair — photograph broken tabs and torn courses at repair boundaries.

See the Roof Matching Documentation Guide and Roof Repairability Documentation Guide for complete documentation standards on matching and repairability disputes.

• →What was missed — list specific damage types, slopes, or line items absent from carrier estimate.
• →Where it was found — reference slope labels, elevation names, and photo file identifiers.
• →Why it matters — tie each omission to scope impact, code requirement, or repair feasibility.
• →What documentation supports it — index photos, measurements, and material records to each claim.
• →How it relates to requested scope — map narrative points to specific supplement or estimate lines.

• →Requesting reinspection without documentation — desk review repeats the same failure when the packet is incomplete.
• →Disorganized photos — unlabeled files without slope context make remote review impossible.
• →No slope labeling — reviewers cannot locate damage without consistent plane naming.
• →Unsupported matching claims — requesting full elevation replacement without availability research or elevation photos.
• →Weak repairability notes — asserting brittleness without test observations or collateral damage photos.
• →No scope comparison — strong photos exist but cannot be mapped to estimate lines.
• →Emotional or speculative language — narratives with unsupported conclusions weaken professional credibility.

• →Roof overview photos — wide elevations of all visible planes included and labeled.
• →Slope-by-slope damage photos — each plane documented with consistent naming.
• →Close-up damage photos — hail, wind, seal failure, and impact detail with context.
• →Soft metal photos — vents, flashings, gutters indexed to estimate lines.
• →Material identification — type, manufacturer, color, style, age on file.
• →Matching documentation — availability research and elevation photos when applicable.
• →Repairability documentation — test results and collateral damage photos when applicable.
• →Carrier estimate comparison — table linking lines to field evidence.
• →Contractor narrative summary — one-page objective overview indexed to scope.
• →Supplement support notes — each line tied to specific documentation references.

Roof reinspections are strongest when contractors provide organized, objective documentation that clearly shows what was missed, where it exists, and how it supports the requested scope.

• →Missed damage — additional hail, wind, or impact damage documented on slopes omitted from carrier scope.
• →Expanded scope — removal squares, accessory LF, or labor items supported by field photos and measurements.
• →Matching issues — discontinued product, color mismatch, or elevation visibility concerns tied to documentation.
• →Repairability concerns — brittle material or collateral damage supporting expanded removal scope.
• →Code items — jurisdiction-required upgrades documented with permit or code reference.
• →Additional materials — underlayment, ventilation, or fastening upgrades supported by field conditions.
• →Estimate alignment — each supplement line references specific photos, measurements, or narrative points — educational and documentation-focused, not a guarantee of approval.

Reinspection supplements succeed when documentation, scope comparison, and narrative tell the same story. Carriers evaluate reinspection requests against evidence quality and field conditions — outcomes are never guaranteed.