WDIIR vs. TARF in Arizona: what each record does

A wood-destroying insect inspection report (WDIIR) and a Termite Action Report Form (TARF) serve different purposes. The first communicates inspection findings; the second records a reportable action with the state. For a small Arizona pest control business, keeping those steps distinct helps the office answer a simple question: is the inspection documented, is the state filing handled, or are both complete?

This article explains the distinction and proposes a handoff checklist. It is an educational workflow example, not a complete compliance procedure. Your business’s qualifying party and current official requirements should govern actual reporting.

WDIIR and TARF at a glance

Question	WDIIR	TARF
What is it for?	Recording a wood-destroying insect inspection	Reporting a qualifying termite-related action to the state
What does it help explain?	Findings and limits of the inspection	The location, type, and date of the reported work
Who needs to understand it?	The inspecting business and the people receiving the report	The business responsible for filing and Arizona’s regulator
Does it replace the other record?	No	No

Arizona’s WDIIR overview describes the inspection report and its role for buyers and lenders. A.R.S. § 3-3631 defines the TARF filing obligation. Start with these sources when deciding which part of a job is still outstanding.

Keep the two deadlines separate

Under A.R.S. § 3-3633(B), a completed WDIIR must be on file in the business licensee’s office within seven calendar days after the inspection, and copies must be retained for three years.

Separately, A.R.S. § 3-3631(A) establishes a thirty-calendar-day TARF filing window after the listed actions, including completion of a WDIIR. That statute also addresses fees and an exemption for certain corrective-treatment circumstances; it is worth reading the full provision rather than applying the headline deadline to every situation.

Those are different obligations. A status such as “report emailed” does not tell the office whether the record is on file or whether the state filing is complete. It also does not prove that the recipient received the intended version.

A useful internal checklist therefore has separate entries for office recordkeeping, recipient delivery, and state filing. This separation is our workflow suggestion; it is not a claim that a particular checklist is mandated by Arizona.

Use one job reference across the handoff

Imagine a small company in which an inspector completes the fieldwork and an office coordinator organizes the next steps. An email saying “finished the Smith house” leaves several details unresolved: which address, which inspection date, which attachment, and which filing status?

A better handoff gives the office a stable reference. For example:

Illustrative handoff: Job AZ-1042. Inspection date recorded. Inspector-reviewed report saved under this job reference. Office copy checked. State filing pending; assigned to the office coordinator. Recipient delivery pending confirmation of the intended recipient.

The reference is an internal convenience, not a replacement for an official identifier. Keep the property address and inspection date visible alongside it. If the business uses a scheduling system, use its existing job reference instead of creating an unrelated second numbering scheme.

A practical handoff record can include:

• Property: the address exactly as used for the inspection record.
• Inspection: the inspection date and responsible inspector.
• Report: the location of the reviewed version and any associated attachments.
• Office record: whether the correct documents are available in the business’s designated record system.
• Filing: the responsible person, current status, and confirmation reference when available.
• Delivery: the intended recipient and the version sent.
• Open question: the person who will resolve it and what is needed.

Do not fill an unknown field with an assumption merely to make the checklist look complete. Make the question visible and route it to the person responsible for answering it.

Avoid a single “done” status

The problem with one checkbox is that different people may interpret it differently. The inspector may mean the field visit is finished. The coordinator may mean an attachment was saved. A customer may understand it as the final report being available.

Use plain, specific states in whatever tool your team already uses:

Suggested internal state	What the team should be able to locate
Ready for inspector review	The draft and the supporting material to be reviewed
Reviewed report available	The exact version the inspector reviewed
Office copy recorded	The report in the designated business record location
Filing confirmed	The filing confirmation or reference, where available
Delivered	The intended recipient and the report version sent

This is an example of workflow organization, not a list of statutory status names. A team can use a spreadsheet or a task list to start. The important property is that a status has a concrete meaning and evidence behind it.

Questions that often come up

Does a TARF replace the inspection report?

No. The action filing and inspection report have distinct purposes. Keep them linked in your records, but do not treat a filing status as the content of the inspection report.

Does a WDIIR guarantee that a property will remain termite-free?

No. A.R.S. § 3-3633(C) addresses visible and accessible conditions at the time of inspection and distinguishes the report from a guarantee about conditions afterward. Our Arizona WDIIR guide explains the report’s scope for readers.

Can office staff change the inspector’s findings?

Administrative coordination and professional authorship should remain separate. PMD’s WDIIR guidance says the writing and notations must be completed by the person who performed the inspection. Route questions about findings back to the inspector rather than editing them as an office cleanup task.

Put the distinction into practice

At your next internal workflow review, take one completed job and ask whether someone unfamiliar with it can find the reviewed report, office copy, filing status, and delivery record without asking the inspector to reconstruct the sequence. That is a useful test of the handoff—not proof of regulatory compliance.

For the evidence side of that handoff, read our WDIIR photo documentation checklist. For questions about existing property records, start with the Arizona termite-history guide.

Sources and editorial scope

Sources checked September 13, 2026:

• Arizona Legislature: A.R.S. § 3-3631 — TARF filing requirements.
• Arizona Legislature: A.R.S. § 3-3633 — WDIIR responsibilities and scope.
• Arizona PMD: Guidance for Completing the WDIIR Form — guidance dated October 3, 2024.
• Arizona Department of Agriculture: WDIIR overview — consumer-facing report context.

The handoff examples are TermiteReport.io’s suggestions. This article was prepared with AI-assisted research and drafting and has not been reviewed by a licensed pest professional. Read our editorial approach. TermiteReport.io is software in development; it does not currently issue reports or file TARFs.