LearnGrokUse one fixed input sheet after every visit. Then ask the model to turn that sheet into a report draft with clear actions, evidence and dates. This is for property managers and letting agents who need a reviewable record, not a polished account that hides uncertainty.
The habit is simple: capture facts at the property, sort them before drafting, then check every repair action against the evidence. It reduces missed follow-ups when several properties need attention.
Key point
Draft from structured evidence
Give the model labelled notes and photo references, not a stream of recollections. The report is only as reliable as the visit record.
1. Record each issue in the same format
During the inspection, or immediately afterwards, make one entry per room or external area. Keep observations separate from what the tenant says. A comment may explain an issue, but it is not proof of its cause.
Use this template in your notes document:
Property: [address or internal reference]
Inspection date: [date]
Inspector: [name]
Occupancy status: [occupied/vacant]
Area: [for example, kitchen]
Item: [for example, under-sink pipework]
Observed condition: [what you saw]
Photo references: [for example, IMG_014, IMG_015]
Tenant comment: [quoted or summarised comment]
Immediate risk seen: [yes/no, with facts]
Existing repair reference: [reference or none known]
Requested next step: [inspect, quote, repair, monitor, clean, confirm]
Write no issue observed for areas you checked and found satisfactory. This prevents a reader treating an omitted room as a room that was not inspected.
Do not write conclusions you cannot support, such as “tenant caused leak” or “mould is due to poor ventilation”. Record the visible condition, the relevant comment and the evidence needed to determine the cause. Responsibility in the report should be a provisional routing decision for review, not a legal finding.
Watch out
Do not let a photo decide the story
A photograph can show staining, damage or an obstructed vent. It may not show the source, timing or cause. State what the image shows and what still needs checking.
2. Prepare the source pack before you prompt
Create a single working document called Inspection source pack. Put the property reference, inspection date and all area entries in it. Add photo filenames beside the relevant observation. If you upload photos, use the same filenames in the notes so the reviewer can trace each statement back to an image.
Remove information that is not needed for the report. Do not include payment details, identity documents, private correspondence or unrelated personal information. Keep tenant comments factual and relevant to the condition or access issue.
If your organisation has a repair priority matrix, copy the applicable categories into the source pack. If it does not, ask for priority labels such as urgent review, routine repair, monitor and no action identified. Do not ask the model to invent service standards or response deadlines.
Features and file handling can vary with the model and account setup. Check the current options in the xAI documentation overview before deciding whether to paste text, attach a document or upload images.
3. Produce the first report draft
Start a new conversation for each property. Paste the source pack, attach the relevant images if available, then use this instruction:
Create a tenancy inspection report from the source pack below.
Use these sections in this order:
1. Visit details
2. Overall condition summary
3. Findings by area
4. Repair and follow-up actions
5. Items requiring manager review
6. Access, tenant communication and next inspection
For every finding, include: area, observed condition, photo reference,
tenant comment if relevant, recommended action, provisional responsibility
route, proposed follow-up date or timing, and evidence gap.
Use only the supplied facts. Do not infer cause, blame, legal responsibility,
repair priority, dates or prior history. Where evidence is missing, write
"manager review required" and say what needs confirming.
Put repair actions in a table. Keep language neutral and suitable for a
property file. Mark any immediate safety concern as "urgent review", without
giving safety or legal advice.
Source pack:
[paste the completed Inspection source pack]
Use provisional responsibility route values that match your internal process. For example: owner-side repair review, tenant action to confirm, contractor diagnosis required, or no action identified. This keeps the report useful without presenting an unsupported decision as fact.
The action table should let a manager scan the work quickly:
| Finding | Action | Provisional route | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|
| Staining below kitchen sink | Arrange diagnosis and check for active leak | Contractor diagnosis required | Date set by manager |
| Extractor grille dusty | Confirm cleaning requirement and recheck ventilation | Tenant action to confirm | Next contact |
4. Review the report against the visit record
Do not send the first draft to a tenant, owner or contractor. Open the report beside the source pack and check it line by line. You are checking traceability, not just grammar.
For each finding, ask:
- Can you point to a note, tenant comment or photo reference that supports this sentence?
- Does the report clearly distinguish what was seen from what was reported?
- Is the action specific enough for someone to assign it?
- Is the responsibility route labelled as provisional where the cause is unknown?
- Does every proposed date come from your process, or is it marked for manager confirmation?
- Are there rooms listed as uninspected, inaccessible or not observed?
Check
Every action needs a trail
A reviewer should be able to move from an action row to the area note and photo reference in under a minute. If they cannot, revise or remove the row.
5. Look for the common failure patterns
The output is going wrong when it sounds more certain than the inspection evidence. This often happens when brief notes leave gaps that the model tries to make readable.
| If you see this | Treat it as wrong because | Do this next |
|---|---|---|
| A stated cause with no inspection evidence | Cause has been inferred | Replace it with the observed condition and request diagnosis |
| A named responsible party without a basis | The report has made a decision for review staff | Change it to a provisional route and flag it for manager review |
| A repair deadline you did not supply | A date has been invented | Remove it or enter the date set by your process |
| “All satisfactory” where areas were not checked | Coverage has been overstated | List inaccessible or uninspected areas explicitly |
| A photo claim that does not match its filename | Evidence cannot be traced | Correct the reference or remove the claim |
Read tenant comments for tone as well as content. Rewrite loaded wording into neutral language. For example, record tenant reported intermittent dripping rather than tenant ignored a leak.
Note
Keep the report and task separate
The report records the inspection. Your repair system records assignment, contractor communication and completion. Copy only approved actions into that system.
6. Finish the repeatable routine
Save the reviewed report with the inspection date and property reference. Keep the source pack and photo set with it, using your organisation’s retention process. Then create tasks only for actions approved by the property manager or authorised reviewer.
After the next few inspections, compare returned reports. If a useful field is repeatedly missing, add it to the source pack rather than relying on a better prompt. Common additions include meter access, smoke alarm observations, keys, access restrictions and outstanding repair references.
When the draft does not work, do not keep asking for a better rewrite of incomplete notes. Return to the source pack. Add the missing area, photo reference, date or stated uncertainty, then generate a fresh draft. If the report still makes unsupported claims, shorten the instruction and require manager review required for every gap. Escalate urgent concerns through your established internal process rather than relying on the report draft.
