Disclosure isn't about what caused the problem, even if the problem has been addressed/fixed. An example that comes to mind about your question is a case where a buyer bought a house with the benefit of inspections, even, and all seemed excellent, especially since the seller, who happened to be a frugal investor, had "fixed" the obvious and visible problems the house exhibited when he bought it. However, after a few months of taking possession the buyer accidentally uncovered areas that were supposedly fixed were just "white-washed" and the true repairs needed to correct damages found in an existing termite report were only covered over. The point of this is that the seller had a duty to both fix AND disclose all that went on, regardless of how the fix was done. He did the disclosure but only to point out a favorable disposition, e.g., repaired this or fixed that, failing to mention the true faults and attempting to shield himself from liability by referring to the inspection report (as part of the disclosure). In the end, the case that developed cost everyone money to the tune of $80,000! So, DISCLOSE, DISCLOSE, DISCLOSE is your best bet. Let the buyer do their due diligence where necessary. Good luck.