If I saw a truss repair like the attached drawing, or close to it, I would tell my client that 'it looks like it may have been an engineered repair', adding 'however, without an engineer's letter designing the repair to look at, the only way to know for sure is to have a structural engineer verify it is actually repaired in accordance with good engineering practice', wording to that effect.
I've done it a few times, however, and much more often, I would state 'the broken/cracked/damaged truss *DOES NOT LOOK TO HAVE BEEN REPAIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TYPICAL ENGINEERING DESIGNS* I've seen in the past, however, the only way to verify that it has, or has not been, repaired properly is to have a structural engineer design appropriate repairs', wording to that effect.
I rarely found one which 'looked right', but there have been a few.
I know, the number of nails, the spacing of the nails, and the not-to-scale drawing do not match - the drawing shows nail spacing accounting for about 18" and then shows that length as 4' ... because it is NTS.
