# Prepare a sloping-lot inquiry without claiming feasibility.

A sloping-lot builder page should prepare a reviewable inquiry, not decide whether a home can be built. Separate visible observations, available survey information, proposed plan responses and qualified conclusions. Ask what the buyer wants to use the home for. Identify missing records. Hold feasibility language until the responsible project review supports it.

## What is known about the site?

Start with the source of each statement. A buyer's description, a photograph and a survey are different inputs. Preserve those differences in your brief. “The buyer reports a falling rear yard” tells the reviewer who made the observation. It does not describe a measured condition or a suitable design.

Use “sloping lot” as the inquiry topic when that matches the buyer's question. Do not turn the topic into a capability claim. If you lack approved project evidence, explain the review inputs without asserting that your team has built similar homes. Leave experience and project outcomes unstated.

Keep four labels in the working record: observation, document, proposal and conclusion. An observation describes what someone reports seeing. A document carries information with a source and date. A proposal records an idea awaiting review. A conclusion needs its qualified review owner and defined scope.

| Input | Useful intake wording | Hold from public copy |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Visible observation | Buyer reports ground falling behind the proposed home area | A slope measurement inferred from a photograph |
| Survey information | Document received, with its stated date and scope recorded | Claims beyond the information reviewed |
| Proposed plan response | Buyer wants to discuss the relationship between rooms and outdoor space | A settled layout or construction method |
| Qualified conclusion | Responsible specialist's approved statement for the specified question | A parcel-wide approval inferred from one finding |

This is an editorial classification for your intake record. It is not a technical assessment method. A photograph alone never establishes a feasible build. Use the [lot due diligence content guide](/articles/land-and-lots/lot-due-diligence-content/) for the broader record-to-public-copy process.

## Which records are available?

Ask for available survey or topographic documents without telling the buyer what those documents prove. Record the title, issuer, date, revision and stated coverage. If a document date is unavailable, label it unknown. Do not substitute the upload date for the date of the underlying information.

Keep a record of what arrived and what remains missing. Ask the responsible reviewer whether a file addresses the question under discussion. A file named “site plan” can enter the record as supplied material while its purpose remains unconfirmed. Do not change the filename into a finding.

If two files disagree, retain both with their separate dates. State the discrepancy in ordinary language and assign it for qualified review. Do not select the version that makes the page easier to write. Keep the disputed statement out of public copy while the conflict remains open.

### What belongs in the slope inquiry record?

Copy this proposed worksheet for each observation, document or buyer request. Keep the actual files in your approved private intake system. Use the public wording field only after the release reviewer checks the statement and its scope.

```
Slope inquiry record
Observation or document:
Source date:
Known scope:
Missing input:
Qualified review owner:
Public wording or hold:
```

Use “known scope” to describe what the input addresses, rather than what you hope it resolves. For example, a buyer photograph can show a reported viewpoint. It does not establish grading quantities or foundation choices. Those questions remain separate entries with their own review owners.

Use “missing input” for a concrete question. “More information needed” gives the buyer little direction. “Document date has not been supplied” identifies an answer they may already have. If the appropriate input is itself unknown, assign that question to the reviewer instead of inventing a document requirement.

Keep document receipt and permission to publish separate. The U.S. Copyright Office distinguishes an architectural work from its technical drawing. See [Circular 41, Authorship in Architectural Works and the technical-drawing note](https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf). The circular grants no permission for a particular plan. Request confirmed publication rights from the responsible party before posting any drawing.

## What should the buyer explain?

Ask how the buyer wants to use the home and outdoor areas. Let them describe arrival, daily movement, room relationships and outdoor connections in familiar words. Keep wishes separate from proposed solutions. A desire to reach outdoor space from a room does not establish a suitable layout.

Ask which ideas are essential and which are open for discussion. The answer helps frame the review conversation without ranking technical options. If the buyer supplies a preferred plan, record its identity and revision. Mark it as a starting proposal until the responsible project review says otherwise.

Keep the buyer's lot relationship explicit. They may own a parcel, be considering one or be asking a general question. Use their stated position without drawing conclusions about control or availability. The public page should not imply that an intake submission reserves land or accepts a project.

1. **Identify the inquiry.** Record the parcel reference through your approved private intake route.

2. **Capture intended use.** Ask which daily activities and room relationships matter to the buyer.

3. **List available material.** Record observations, photographs and documents with their stated sources.

4. **Separate ideas from findings.** Label the proposed plan response as awaiting review.

5. **Assign missing questions.** Ask the responsible specialist which inputs and interpretations are needed.

6. **Prepare a limited reply.** Confirm receipt and identify open questions without predicting feasibility.

The [Operating profile stage](/process/operating-profile/) records your actual intake roles and decision points. Publish only the process your team confirms it follows. Do not borrow an intake sequence and present it as established practice without checking it.

### How should you present an information-rich drawing?

When a permitted drawing carries essential information, explain that information in text too. W3C's complex-images guidance describes a short identifying alternative and a longer text alternative for essential detail. Its Long descriptions section recommends making detailed explanations available to everyone. See the [W3C complex images tutorial](https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/complex/).

For a reviewed drawing, identify its purpose and status in nearby text. Keep the explanation tied to the approved version. This is an image-presentation practice. It does not prove design compliance, construction suitability or permission to share the drawing. If the drawing is not approved for release, keep it private.

## Which questions require review?

Keep grading, drainage, retaining work, foundations and access as distinct questions in the intake record. Assign each to the responsible qualified reviewer. Do not provide a slope threshold, recommend a construction method or infer a technical result from neighboring work. This page prepares questions rather than solving them.

Keep cost and approvals unresolved too. Ask which project records will support a later discussion. Do not offer a generic slope premium or a predicted approval outcome. The [site cost explanation guide](/articles/land-and-lots/explaining-site-costs-to-buyers/) helps organize scope questions without replacing a project-specific review.

Separate the responsible specialist's finding from the writer's release decision. A reviewer might answer one limited question while other project questions remain open. Record that boundary in the worksheet. Avoid broad labels such as “approved site” when the source covers a narrower issue.

If a technical term appears in the draft, ask whether your reviewer approved that term for this context. Do not add an explanation from memory to make the page sound complete. Request plain wording from the responsible source, or omit the dependent claim.

### What happens in a fictional inquiry?

This unnamed example is fictional. It represents no actual parcel, builder or proposed design. A buyer supplies a photograph and says the land appears to fall behind the place they imagine the house. They want a strong connection between indoor living and outdoor space. No survey or qualified finding is supplied.

The worksheet records the photograph as an observation source. The source date is unknown. Known scope is the visible scene from the reported viewpoint. Missing inputs include the image date and the reviewer's decision about needed site records. The qualified review owner is not yet assigned.

The proposed home arrangement remains a buyer preference. Grading, drainage, retaining work, foundations, access, cost and approvals remain unresolved. The editor holds any phrase saying the plan suits the lot. There is no evidence here for a project achievement or a builder-wide capability.

### What public excerpt could accompany that process?

For a sloping-lot inquiry, share the site records you already have and explain how you want to use the home. Identify missing dates or documents where possible. Initial information prepares the review conversation. It does not establish plan fit, site feasibility, construction scope, cost or approvals.

This excerpt is proposed process wording, not a response to a verified project. Check it against your actual intake practice before publication. Keep private parcel records and the buyer's specific preferences out of a public example.

## What can the public page say now?

Explain the information you request, who reviews it and which statements remain conditional. If the reviewer is not yet assigned, describe that assignment as the next internal task. Do not invent a completed specialist [handoff](/process/handoff/) to make the public process look settled.

Use the [build process documentation guide](/guides/writing-down-your-build-process/) to connect public wording with confirmed team responsibilities. Return to the [land and lots library](/articles/land-and-lots/) for related content. Keep each page's factual scope clear when you combine explanations in a buyer conversation.

Give published statements a review trigger. A new document, revised plan or qualified finding should return dependent wording for a check. Keep the source date and publication date distinct. Retain open questions until the responsible reviewer supplies the answer and approves its public scope.

If the parcel also relates to a golf course, use the [golf-course lot page guide](/articles/land-and-lots/golf-course-lot-builder-page-content/) for adjacency and rights wording. A visible course does not answer the site questions here. Likewise, a site finding does not establish membership or course access.

## Which sloping-lot content questions need clear boundaries?

### Can a photograph establish that a sloping lot is feasible?

A sloping-lot photograph alone never establishes a feasible build. Record the observation and its known source information. Assign questions about the site and proposed home to the responsible qualified reviewers.

### What if the buyer has no survey or topographic document?

Mark those documents as unavailable in the sloping-lot inquiry record. Ask the responsible reviewer which inputs are needed. Do not invent measurements or treat an empty upload field as a completed site review.

### Should the page recommend a foundation or retaining approach?

Keep foundation and retaining approaches unresolved on an intake page. Collect the buyer's intended use and available site records. A qualified project review must support any later project-specific statement.

### Does this worksheet prove sloping-lot experience?

The slope inquiry worksheet organizes editorial inputs and open questions. It supplies no evidence of completed work, engineering capability or project approval. Publish experience claims only when separate approved project evidence supports them.