Our condo needs a special assessment, but the paperwork explains almost nothing

Our condo board sent a notice proposing a special assessment for exterior repairs. My share would be several thousand dollars. The amount is uncomfortable but possible. The lack of detail is what keeps me awake.

The notice says the work is necessary to address “building envelope concerns” identified during routine review. It gives a total project estimate and a payment schedule. It does not include the consultant's report, contractor bids, scope, contingency, or an explanation of which surfaces are affected. At the meeting, the board president said too much technical material would confuse owners and promised that the professionals had reviewed everything.

That answer produced exactly the confidence you would expect.

Some owners now insist the assessment is proof of years of neglect. Others say anyone asking questions is delaying essential work. I do not know enough to join either camp. An expensive project can be both necessary and poorly communicated. A thin notice can hide a weak process, or it can simply reflect volunteers who are bad at writing notices.

I want to ask for a small, specific set of records: the problem summary, proposed scope, bid comparison, funding plan, contingency, expected schedule and the decision path if work uncovers more damage. I also want the board to explain what can be shared with all owners and what questions should go to the building's professional advisers. I will review the governing documents and get appropriate local advice for any rights or deadlines; I am not asking commenters to invent them.

My spouse worries that a long request will make us look hostile to neighbors who volunteer their time. I worry that politeness will be mistaken for consent to write a large check without understanding what it buys.

What is the smallest document set that would let an ordinary owner evaluate the process without pretending to evaluate engineering? How would you phrase the request so it tests transparency rather than accusing the board of misconduct?