Dataset · v1.0.0 · 4 rows

Negotiation outcome taxonomy

The four ways an elevated radon result resolves in a residential transaction, what drives each, which party carries the residual risk, and what should be in writing.

The data

OutcomeTypical driversResidual risk held byMust be in writingCommon failure
Seller installs before closingSeller wants a clean file, timeline permits, buyer has leverage or the result is well above the action level.buyerCredentialed contractor, written scope, post-mitigation verification test completed and delivered before closing, warranty transfer.Work completed to a deadline with no verification test, leaving the buyer owning equipment of unknown performance.
Seller credits the buyer at closingTimeline is tight, buyer wants control of contractor selection, or the parties prefer a number to a project.buyerThe credit amount derived from a written quote on the actual house, not an average; who holds responsibility if scope grows.Credit sized from a national figure and short of the real scope once a crawl space or second suction point appears.
Cost split between the partiesModest result, balanced leverage, both sides want the deal to proceed without conceding the principle.sharedWho contracts the work, who selects the contractor, and what happens if the verification test fails.Neither party owns the outcome, so the verification test and any remedy fall between them.
Buyer absorbs the costStrong seller market, waived or limited inspection contingency, or a price that already reflected condition.buyerNothing is negotiated, but the buyer should still test and budget from a written quote rather than an assumption.Testing skipped along with the contingency, so the buyer inherits an unmeasured house rather than a measured one.

Download and API

Licence. CC BY 4.0 — reuse with attribution to Radon Connect and a link to the dataset page.

Field schema

FieldTypeDescription
outcomestringHow the finding resolves.
driversstringConditions under which this outcome tends to occur.
residualRiskHolderenum
buyer · seller · shared
Who bears the risk if the remedy proves inadequate.
mustBeWrittenstringThe terms that prevent this outcome going wrong.
commonFailurestringHow this outcome most often disappoints.

Methodology

The question this answers

When an elevated radon result appears during a sale, what are the actual resolutions and what drives each?

How a row comes to exist

  • The four outcomes are exhaustive of how a negotiated inspection finding can resolve: one side performs, one side pays, both pay, or neither does.
  • Driver, risk-holder, and failure columns are editorial analysis grounded in the contract mechanics described across this platform’s transaction guides.

Inclusion and exclusion

  • Residential transactions in the ten states we serve, none of which requires a seller to test or mitigate an existing home.
  • Transactions subject to a specific lender or programme requirement are excluded, because that requirement rather than negotiation governs.

What this dataset cannot tell you

  • This is a taxonomy, not frequency data. We hold no observations on how often each outcome occurs and do not imply a distribution — see the negotiation outcome collection instrument for what would be required to publish one.
  • Nothing here is legal advice. What a contract requires and what a deadline means are questions for an agent and, where warranted, an attorney.
  • Regional custom varies considerably. The drivers column describes tendencies, not rules.

Related

Sources

  1. U.S. EPA Radon
  2. U.S. EPA Home Buyer’s and Seller’s Guide to Radon
  3. U.S. EPA A Citizen’s Guide to Radon

Get quotes from credentialed local contractors

Free to request and no obligation. We verify credentials with the issuing authority before any request routes to a contractor.

Start a request