This guide examines Earthquake risk screening specifically through the lens of “Pre-Commitment Freeze”, using the official rule and evidence that belong to this topic rather than expanding into adjacent subjects.
Official facts that control the topic
The first substantive rule for “Pre-Commitment Freeze — Earthquake risk screening” is this: AFAD’s Turkey Earthquake Hazard Map is a hazard map, not a building-specific risk map; it does not by itself combine building vulnerability, exposure and expected losses.
Applied specifically through the “Pre-Commitment Freeze” lens to Earthquake risk screening, the official position is more precise: A formal “risky building” determination under Law No. 6306 follows a regulated technical procedure carried out by authorised institutions. The risky-building method is not the same as a full seismic-performance/retrofit assessment, and a building not classified as risky under that procedure cannot automatically be treated as meeting all modern seismic-design requirements.
What this review changes
Before signing a binding commitment or sending a material payment, freeze the state of Earthquake risk screening in a dated, identifiable version. The purpose is to know exactly what the decision relied on, not to prevent later updates.
Before commitment, confirm that these items belong to the correct property, party and period: building location, construction year/system, any formal 6306 report, authorised institution, report date/result and technical documents that identify the building precisely. Keep any material unresolved point as a written condition before payment or signature.
A material open item that can change the outcome should remain a condition precedent to commitment, not a footnote.
Documents and data that must reconcile
For “Pre-Commitment Freeze”, the key evidence is: building location, construction year/system, any formal 6306 report, authorised institution, report date/result and technical documents that identify the building precisely
Scope boundary
Because this record is limited to “Pre-Commitment Freeze”, its boundary matters: Regional hazard data or building age should not be converted into a final engineering verdict on the safety of a specific structure.