02
Who experiences it
- Developers, contractors and infrastructure owners
- Project-controls teams and claims consultants
- Construction law firms, sureties and lenders
Loading evidence file
Loading evidence file
Reconstruct exactly when a project slipped, which events caused the delay, who was responsible and what evidence supports that conclusion.
The operational problem
The explanation for a delay is distributed across schedule versions, RFIs, change orders, site instructions and meeting minutes. By the time a project needs an answer, chronology and causation are expensive to reconstruct and difficult to audit.
Who experiences it
Current workflow
Collect multiple schedule exports with inconsistent naming
Search document folders for events that explain changed activities
Rebuild a chronology in spreadsheets and narrative documents
Compare recollections against incomplete contemporary records
Repeat the work when new evidence or a revised schedule appears
Interactive product demonstration
This is a front-end product thesis built with synthetic local data. Interact with the controls to inspect the proposed workflow; it does not represent a deployed customer system.
To: Project delivery team
Reference: HLUC / Zone B / Coordination
Programme consequences are to be assessed against the accepted baseline and reported at the next controls meeting.
↳ Supports finding F-018Demonstration only. Potential extension-of-time and liquidated-damages indicators require professional contractual and legal review. This is not legal advice.
What the proposed system does
Normalizes original and revised schedules into one comparable activity model
Links schedule movement to dated project evidence
Separates owner, contractor, consultant and external-event attribution
Flags contradictions and missing support instead of silently filling gaps
Produces a reviewable management narrative with source citations
Keeps contractual indicators explicitly subject to professional review
Required customer data
Data availability, rights and quality are assessed before a live pilot is scoped.
Expected measurable outcomes
Target outcome: reduce manual chronology and source-retrieval work.
Measure the proportion of findings with a direct, inspectable evidence chain.
Surface contradictions and unsupported periods for expert attention.
These are target outcomes and pilot hypotheses. Baselines, thresholds and measurement methods are agreed with the design partner before work begins.
08 / 30 / 60 / 90
The scope increases only when the previous stage establishes that the data, workflow and economics support it.
01 / evidence gate
Reconstruct one historical project and deliver an evidence-linked delay audit.
02 / evidence gate
Create a controlled workspace that ingests schedules and project documents.
03 / evidence gate
Add live monitoring, alerts, permissions and portfolio reporting.
Typical price range
Scoped after evidence review
Historical audits and live pilots vary materially with document volume, schedule quality and required expert review.
Prices shown in Canadian dollars, excluding applicable taxes and third-party data or licensing costs.Risks and limitations
11 / Design-partner intake
We are looking for operators who can test the product thesis against real constraints and help define what an operational version must do.
Discuss this project