Client wants me to sign the underwriting model I built for their LP deck

The carve-out being in the cover letter is the part that worries me. I've been reading consulting agreements to figure out what a scope section actually has to say, and the pattern I notice is that the reliance language lives in the engagement letter while the deliverable itself is a clean PDF with a logo on it. Those two documents get separated within about a day of the deck going out. If your comp study has your name on page one and the assumptions you didn't set are on page nine of a different file, I don't see how the boundary holds.

Attribution and reliance are separate things, and the fee already tells you the deal is mispriced for one of them. 45k buys a comp build and an expense reforecast. It doesn't buy the exposure that comes with being a named source in an offering document, which is why appraisal and market study shops that do accept that role charge differently and carry different coverage.

The workable structure puts the limitation inside the deliverable, not around it. Your comp study becomes a standalone report with its own scope, sources, effective date, and a stated set of conditions and limiting conditions on the first page rather than the last. It states what you examined and what you did not. Every page carries a footer. If the sponsor wants that report cited, they cite the report as a whole, not extracts, and the engagement letter names who may rely on it and says the report may not be reproduced in part. That's the mechanism appraisers use, and it exists because partial extraction is exactly the failure mode.

The part you'd have to resolve first is your carrier. You answered no on the application. Whether your policy responds to a claim arising from work cited in an offering, and whether amending that answer changes your premium or triggers anything on the existing policy period, is a question for your broker in writing before you agree to anything. Whether your memo becomes part of an offering document in a way that carries statutory exposure is a securities lawyer's call, and it's worth the hour.

The thing likely to actually bite you is the effective date. Comps age. If the raise stretches nine months and your rent study still sits in the deck with your name on it, you've implicitly re-issued it. Put an expiration in the report and make the sponsor come back and pay for a refresh.