CRE Due Diligence Issues Log: Evidence and Decision Owners
Build a CRE diligence issues log that links each open question to its source, decision owner, next evidence and recorded disposition, with an editable CSV.
CRE Due Diligence Issues Log: Evidence and Decision Owners
The short answer
Give each unresolved diligence question its own stable issue ID. Record the source and version, the exact question, the next evidence needed, a named decision owner, the affected assumption and the resulting disposition reference. Track document receipt, follow-up completion and the decision separately.
NextAutomation builds underwriting review workflows that connect source documents to the model and committee handoff. An issues log is a useful part of that system: it shows which conclusion is ready for a reviewer and which still needs evidence.
Start with the unanswered question
A folder can be complete while the acquisition case still contains an open question. The environmental report arrived, but its recommendation needs a response. A contractor's estimate covers one scope while the model assumes another. The rent roll and ledger use different periods. Each can generate a decision that a receipt checkbox cannot represent.
Keep the question narrow enough to answer. Replace 'check roof' with 'Does the supplied estimate include the replacement scope used in the buyer case?' Retain the estimate version and model assumption reference. A later estimate should create a traceable update instead of silently replacing the evidence.
The OCC Commercial Real Estate Lending handbook provides banking supervision context for prudent CRE credit analysis. It does not prescribe this spreadsheet or determine a buyer’s closing requirements. Use the transaction documents and responsible professionals to set those requirements.
Assign the decision and the next action separately
The person collecting a missing file may not be the person authorized to accept the resulting assumption. Give both responsibilities a field. In a real deal, use a named person and a review date rather than the role placeholders used below.
| Field | Useful entry | Why it stays separate |
|---|---|---|
| issue_id / source_ref | I-01; rent-roll-v2, row 18 | Reopens the same question after a document revision. |
| question / next_evidence | Reconcile period difference; request allocation detail | Specifies what would help resolve the question. |
| action_owner / decision_owner | Analyst / investment reviewer | Collecting evidence and accepting an assumption are different responsibilities. |
| affected_assumption | NOI case, model cell reference | Connects the question to the decision it can change. |
| status / disposition_ref | Awaiting evidence / blank | Makes missing acceptance visible. |
| deadline / consequence | Transaction-specific review date and escalation | Comes from the actual review process, not a universal rule. |
Use materiality categories agreed by the team. Record whether an exposure is unquantified, an illustrative sensitivity or an accepted amount. Do not invent a universal dollar threshold or let a model decide whether an issue permits closing.
Work five synthetic diligence questions
The five records below are synthetic workflow examples. They are not findings on an actual property, legal advice or a closing checklist. Reviewer labels are roles to replace with real assignments.
| Issue | Evidence and question | Next action / decision owner |
|---|---|---|
| I-01: rent timing | Rent roll v2 and ledger v1 cover different periods. What explains the difference? | Request period allocation / investment reviewer. |
| I-02: roof scope | Estimate v1 excludes an area included in the buyer's capital plan. | Request matched scope and estimate / technical reviewer, then investment reviewer for the model. |
| I-03: missing report | The requested environmental report is absent. | Obtain the report / environmental professional and transaction reviewers as appropriate. |
| I-04: task done, question open | A revised tax bill was uploaded; the buyer case still uses the prior amount. | Review timing and assumption treatment / investment reviewer with tax adviser input. |
| I-05: disposition recorded | Deposit reconciliation has an accounting explanation and a referenced reviewer decision. | Preserve the evidence and recorded disposition; reopen if relevant evidence changes. |
In the supplied CSV, I-01 through I-04 remain unresolved and I-05 has a recorded disposition. The I-04 task is complete while its decision remains open. That distinction is intentional. 'Decision recorded' reports the exercise's workflow state; it does not certify legal sufficiency or a clear-to-close result.
Record file and version.
Request evidence and name the reviewer.
Retain decision and supporting reference.
Test the handoff with deliberate exceptions
Remove I-05's disposition reference while leaving its status unchanged. The acceptance check should flag the mismatch. Mark I-04's collection task complete and verify the decision still appears in the open-issues view. Supply a new estimate for I-02 and confirm the old version and prior question remain recoverable.
Next, open the committee output. It should identify unresolved issues that affect its assumptions, including the responsible reviewer and the evidence still needed. An AI-generated paragraph should not say that diligence is complete merely because every source slot has a file. Keep a human review step for the narrative as well as the structured register.
For issue-specific evidence, use the tenant-estoppel exception register, buyer property-tax bridge and warehouse power evidence checklist. Those guides deepen particular questions; this log connects the open questions across a review.
Download and adapt the register
Download the five-issue CSV and acceptance notes. Fill in the actual evidence locations, people and agreed deadlines before using the structure. Keep sensitive deal files in the authorized system rather than publishing them with a template.
The public source-to-output review exercise provides a separate inspectable handoff. Use it alongside your own permitted sample to define what a reviewer needs to see before accepting an automated output.
Frequently asked questions
What is a CRE due diligence issues log?
It is a record of unresolved evidence questions and recorded dispositions. Each row identifies the source, question, next evidence, responsible reviewer, affected assumption and decision reference.
When should an issue be marked closed?
Use the transaction team's agreed review process. In this teaching workflow, the reviewer records a disposition and its evidence reference before a decision is marked recorded. Uploading a document or finishing a task alone does not close the question.
Should an AI tool decide whether an issue blocks closing?
No. It can organize evidence and identify missing references. The responsible investment, legal, technical and other professionals determine materiality, acceptance and transaction consequences.
How is this different from a document checklist?
A document checklist tracks requested and received files. The issues log tracks the questions those files leave open, who must decide them and the evidence supporting the resulting disposition.
Related Articles
Commercial Property CRM Import Template: Keep the Right IDs
Prepare a commercial property list for CRM import with separate property, entity and contact IDs, a mapping template and a checked synthetic example.
Tenant Estoppel Review: Build an Exception Register Before Closing
Turn returned tenant estoppels into sourced comparison questions. Preserve qualifications, track missing evidence and record the responsible reviewer’s disposition.
CRE Property-Tax Reassessment: Bridge the Current Bill to the Buyer Case
Bridge the current property-tax bill to a supported buyer underwriting case. Separate recurring NOI changes from supplemental billing and cash timing.