What kind of assignment is it when an appraiser is asked to evaluate the quality of another appraiser's work and agree/disagree with the value conclusion?

The assignment described in the question involves evaluating the quality of another appraiser's work and providing an opinion on the value conclusion reached by that appraiser. This task is best categorized as a two-stage assignment.

In such assignments, the first stage typically involves a thorough review of the original appraisal to assess both the methodology and the conclusions drawn by the initial appraiser. The second stage entails reaching a conclusion on whether to agree or disagree with the findings made by the original appraiser. This process highlights the evaluative aspect of the assignment where the appraiser must apply their expertise to critique another's work effectively.

The other choices do not capture the essence of this task as accurately. A consulting assignment usually involves providing guidance or advice rather than formally evaluating another appraiser's work. A standard appraisal assignment is more focused on performing an independent appraisal rather than reviewing another's findings. Lastly, while a quality assessment assignment may appear relevant, it typically focuses on assessing the quality of an appraisal without necessarily involving a disagreement on the value conclusion itself. In the context of the question, the two-stage assignment framework explicitly outlines the comparative evaluation process that is central to the task described.