Writing a structural movement assessment: what the report needs to show
23 September 2026 · 8 min read · Aiman Salem
A structural movement assessment is usually commissioned because something has already gone wrong: cracking the owner can see, doors that no longer close, a floor that visibly falls. The report's job is to explain what is happening, why, and what to do about it, in a form that someone else can act on and that will still make sense if the matter ends in a dispute.
The reports that hold up share a structure. The observations come first and stay factual. The discussion connects them to a cause, and the recommendations follow from the cause in a sensible order.
1. Observations, element by element
Record what you saw, where, and how you measured it, organised by building element (roof and drainage, walls, floors, sub-floor) rather than in the order you walked the site. For each observation, the location should be unambiguous: the elevation, the room and the position. A marker on a floor plan does this better than prose.
Cracks need numbers. Width at the widest point, measured with a gauge that is visible in the photograph, plus direction (vertical, horizontal, stepped) and whether it is wider at the top or the bottom. Width and taper are what later sections will reason from.
2. Floor levels
Relative floor levels are some of the most persuasive evidence in a movement report, and the most often overstated. State the instrument, the datum and how you adjusted for changes in floor finish. Say plainly that the readings are relative and indicative, not a survey, and that the original as-built levels are unknown. A contour plot makes the pattern (a dome, a dish, a tilt) visible at a glance. Always state the unit on the legend.
Report the full range. If one room is 50 mm above the datum and another is 50 mm below it, the differential across the house is 100 mm. Quoting only the larger half understates the movement.
3. Site conditions
- Drainage: gutters, downpipes and where they discharge, surface falls next to the footings, ponding, and any pipes or pits beside the footing line.
- Vegetation: trees and garden beds near the building, and any history of removal. Historical aerial imagery is often the only evidence that a tree was there.
- Site fall and overland flow towards the building.
- What you did not investigate. Unless a geotechnical investigation was done, soil reactivity is inferred, not measured. Say so.
4. Discussion: the cause, and the alternatives
Connect the pattern of damage to a mechanism. Heave under a wet area and settlement under a dried-out one leave different signatures in crack taper and floor shape, and the discussion should show that reasoning rather than assert a conclusion. Where the damage is categorised against a published damage scale, say which one and why each observation places it there.
Name the alternatives you considered and why you discounted them. It is the section most likely to be tested, and a cause stated without alternatives looks like the first idea that fitted.
5. Recommendations in a workable order
Movement caused by moisture change is rarely fixed by repairing the cracks first. A sequence that owners and builders can follow usually runs:
- Fix the moisture sources: roof drainage, leaking pipes, surface falls, ponding.
- Investigate what cannot be seen, such as CCTV and pressure testing of underground drainage.
- Deal with vegetation where it is a factor.
- Monitor: crack gauges and repeat level readings over a period long enough to span seasons.
- Then repair: articulation joints, masonry, finishes. Investigate the footings further if movement continues.
Each recommendation should be one distinct action. The conclusion should state the condition, the cause and the severity, and leave the actions to the recommendations. Saying everything twice is how two versions of the same instruction end up in one report.
6. Limitations
State what the inspection was: visual, non-destructive, limited to accessible areas, on one day. Limitations written for the job, not pasted from the last one, are the ones that protect the author.
Written for practising inspectors and engineers. This is general guidance about documenting an inspection, not engineering advice about any particular building. reportai.au is software for writing reports — it does not carry out inspections, and it does not certify anything. Professional judgement stays with the person who signs the report.
More field notes · What reportai.au does · Pricing
Home · What is ReportAI · For homeowners · For builders · Pricing · FAQ · About · Field notes · Contact · Create an account · Sign in · Terms · Privacy · Refunds
reportai.au is a report documentation tool. It does not carry out inspections, does not assess or certify the condition of any building, and does not provide engineering services. Reports are AI-assisted drafts prepared for the inspecting engineer to check, correct, and sign off. All professional judgement remains yours.
Aiman Salem, trading as ReportAi.au · ABN 95 973 765 172 · admin@reportai.au · Prices in Australian dollars.