Sections 1 to 10 carry the analysis and the reasoning. Every number in them is supported by a register in the appendices, named at the point it is used, so a finding can be traced to the activities that produced it without leaving the document.
Section 1 is written for the signer and is sufficient on its own to make the acceptance decision. Sections 2 to 8 are for the project controls reviewer. The appendices are the working detail for the planner correcting the programme.
R12 should not be accepted. Two of the four reasons for non-acceptance in clause 31.3 are made out on the face of the programme, and the Project Manager should notify them by 14 March.
The finding that changes the decision is not a schedule metric. Planned Completion has moved 49 days later than R11. Twelve of those days are covered by notified compensation events. The remaining 37 days appear in R12 with no notification, no compensation event reference and no explanation in the accompanying narrative. Twenty-three activities carry planned dates different from R11 with no corresponding change record, fourteen of them on the driving path.
Accepting R12 as submitted would move the Accepted Programme 49 days to the right, of which 37 days have never been justified. That is not a drafting error to be picked up next month; it is the point at which the Accepted Programme stops being a reliable reference for assessing compensation events.
The composite is the weighted sum of four layers and nothing else. There is no base allowance — a programme with no merit scores zero rather than starting part-way up the scale — and no rounding in the submitter's favour. Weights and thresholds are configurable per organisation and are recorded with the assessment, so any score can be reproduced from the source file and the versions in Appendix G.
Named rules decide the verdict independently of the number, so a single inflated layer cannot carry a programme through. Four of the six rules were triggered. Rules that did not fire are recorded alongside those that did, in Appendix B, so the gate can be audited in both directions.
GR-01 composite 58 against a minimum of 65 · GR-02 17 activities in negative float where the tolerance is zero · GR-03 six leads against a zero-tolerance check · GR-05 Planned Completion moved 37 days beyond the notified change.
Not triggered: GR-04 contract-mandatory content absent — three items are absent, but none is individually gate-blocking at this stage · GR-06 open ends 5.0% against a 10% tolerance.
A submission review that cannot compare revisions is a health check with a different name. R12 is assessed against R11 activity by activity, and against the accepted R8 baseline, so the question is not only whether this programme is sound but what was changed to make it look that way.
14 Aug 2027 → 02 Oct 2027. Notified compensation events account for 12 days (CE-041, CE-044). 37 days are undeclared.
23 activities carry planned dates differing from R11 with no compensation event, early warning or narrative entry. 14 are on the driving path. Listed in Appendix E.
214 activities added, 38 removed, 96 re-logicked — 9% of the network in one cycle. High for a monthly update and unexplained in the narrative.
SPI(t) 0.93, BEI 0.91, CPLI 0.94. All three below 1.0 for a third consecutive revision.
The DCMA 14-point checks plus four supplementary indices, at the thresholds configured for this contract. Severity is weighted by the number of activities affected and by whether the check is zero-tolerance, so the layer score is not a pass-count conversion. The full register, with each measured value, threshold and movement since R11, is Appendix A.
Taken as a snapshot, ten of eighteen checks pass and the layer scores 73 — respectable for a live production programme. Taken against R11, the picture is different: fifteen of the eighteen checks moved the wrong way this revision and not one improved. Individually most remain inside tolerance. Collectively that is a network being degraded by update pressure rather than maintained.
Three movements matter more than the rest:
Resource loading is absent from this export, so resource-conflict analysis and duration-realism testing are out of scope for this revision and are reported as N/A rather than estimated. CPLI, BEI and Missed Tasks are calculated here because an approved baseline (R8) is present; where no baseline exists these return N/A rather than a plan-based substitute.
Whether the phases actually hand off to one another in the logic. A programme can pass every quality check and still fail to connect construction to commissioning — quality checks test how the network is built, not whether it joins up.
1 · Every activity is classified into one macro-phase, using a fixed precedence: an activity code whose values match the phase lexicon, then an unambiguous action word in the activity name, then the WBS path, then an object or area word in the name. The name is split across two steps because programmes routinely file “Practical Completion” under the last trade’s WBS branch — the branch says where the bar sits, the verb says what it does. The precedence never varies, so the same file always classifies the same way.
2 · Only interfaces that can exist are expected. The sector is derived from the file — commercial building, process or industrial plant, or infrastructure — and selects the phase sequence. Every sector shares the same front (design, procurement, fabrication, delivery) and the same back (testing, commissioning, handover) and differs only in the middle: a plant runs civils, structural steel, equipment, piping and E&I where a tower runs substructure, superstructure, envelope, MEP and fit-out. Where no sector clearly wins, the middle collapses to four coarse bands rather than assessing a plant against a tower’s phase order. An interface A→B is tested only where both phases are present in the file and A precedes B — the engine never reports a missing handoff to a phase the project does not have.
3 · Required paths are counted from the network, not assumed. For A→B, the required count is the number of boundary points: activities in B with no predecessor inside B, plus activities in A with no successor inside A. A point counts as present when a path crosses the boundary — directly, or through a short run of unclassified milestones and hinge activities belonging to neither phase. An activity that belongs to some other phase is not a hinge, and no path is counted through it.
4 · Confidence is graded by the classification source — activity code High, WBS Medium, name lexicon only Low — and reported per interface. A Low-confidence result is a prompt to improve activity coding, not a finding against the programme.
Nothing in this section requires the user to tag activities, map phases or set anything up. Where the coding is too thin to classify with confidence, the engine says so rather than guessing.
The first four interfaces are sound: design releases into procurement, procurement into fabrication, fabrication into delivery, and the substructure hands over to the superstructure cleanly. This is a competently built programme through to the frame.
From the envelope onward the handoffs thin out, and beyond fit-out they effectively stop. Thirty-six of the forty-eight required links from fit-out into testing and commissioning are missing, and there is no logic at all between commissioning and handover.
This is why the completion date is unreliable in a way the float figures do not reveal. The last four months of the programme are not a network — they are a list of dates. Slippage in fit-out has no path along which to propagate to the completion milestone, so the date will hold on paper while the work behind it slips, and then fail all at once. It also means the negative float in section 4 understates the problem: float can only be calculated along logic that exists.
Whether the programme contains what a commercial tower under NEC4 must contain. The quality checks in section 4 tell you whether a schedule is well built; this tells you whether it is finished. Presence alone earns no credit — content must be logic-linked into the network to count, because an activity with no predecessor and no successor models nothing.
The engine detects the project type from the WBS vocabulary, activity-name lexicon and calendar profile — here commercial building, confidence 96% — and loads the content requirements for that type, plus the requirements the selected contract form adds. The user picks nothing. Where project-type confidence falls below 80% the engine reports the ambiguity and tests only the requirements common to the candidate types.
The absent content and the empty interfaces are the same defect seen from two directions. The programme models the building of the tower and stops. Everything between practical completion of the fit-out and handing the building over — commissioning systems, witnessing, defects, O&M, client training — occupies eleven activities and forty working days, with almost no logic. On a project of this size that phase realistically runs to four months.
The deterministic completion date is one outcome of a network with uncertain durations, not a commitment. A Monte Carlo simulation of 10,000 iterations runs automatically over the R12 network as part of every review, and places the submitted date well down the resulting distribution.
No risk workshop is required and none was held. Where the file carries duration ranges — optimistic and pessimistic user fields, or a linked risk register — the engine uses them. This file carries none, so ranges were assigned automatically by risk class: each activity is banded from its phase, duration, activity type, remaining-versus-original duration and position relative to the critical path, and given a three-point range for that band. Long-duration procurement is ranged wider and right-skewed; short fixed inspections are ranged tightly. Correlation groups are applied within phases so the simulation does not sample independently and understate the spread.
Bands, skews and correlation are part of the versioned rule pack in Appendix G, so the same file always produces the same distribution.
The submitted completion date has roughly a one-in-five chance of being met. That is not unusual for a deterministic CPM date — merge bias alone pushes most of them into the P10–P30 band — but a commitment made on 02 October 2027 is a commitment to the optimistic tail.
The simulation can only sample the network it is given. The absent commissioning, handover and long-lead content identified in section 6 is not in the model, and the missing interfaces in section 5 mean late-phase slippage has no path along which to propagate. The real distribution is therefore wider and later than shown. Treat the P80 above as a floor, not a forecast.
To turn this into a defensible forecast: supply three-point ranges for the activities that matter, add the discrete risk events from the project risk register, and re-run once the corrective actions in section 9 are complete. That is the full QSRA, and it is a separate exercise from this screening run.
R12 is a competent construction programme with an incomplete back end, submitted with 37 days of unexplained date movement. The first is a technical problem with a known fix. The second is a governance problem, and it is the reason for non-acceptance.
Read together, sections 3 to 8 describe a single pattern rather than a list of defects. The programme is well built through to the frame and thins out steadily thereafter — interfaces degrade from 96 to zero across the sequence, the content that belongs in the final phase is absent, and the completion date that this thin back end produces has moved 49 days without explanation. The technical checks in section 4 are the symptom; the missing late-phase model in sections 5 and 6 is the cause.
Two of the six must-fix items were raised against R11 and remain open. A defect surviving two submissions has stopped being a technical finding and become a governance one: it indicates the review comments from the last cycle were not worked, which is itself worth raising in the reply.
Two further items are recommended rather than mandatory — adding long-lead procurement, and producing a change log for the 23 altered activities. The complete register, with verification tests and carried-forward flags, is Appendix F.
R13 will be assessed against R12 and against the accepted R8 baseline. The six must-fix items are re-tested automatically and each closes only when its verification test passes — not when it is reported as done. Items still open at R13 will carry a second-revision flag.
Four layers, weighted 40 / 25 / 20 / 15, each scored 0–100 from the checks in sections 4 to 7. The composite is their weighted sum, with no base allowance and no rounding in the submitter's favour. Weights, thresholds and gate rules are configurable per organisation and are recorded with the assessment, so a score can be reproduced exactly from the source file and the versions in Appendix G.
The weighting is ScheduleInsight's. It is informed by DCMA-EA PAM 200.1, the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide, AACE RP 29R-03 and the NEC4 ECC, but no external body prescribes these weights. Individual checks cite recognised sources; the composite does not, and it should not be presented as a certification. It is a consistent instrument for comparing one revision with the next.
This assessment reads a static XER export plus the R11 and R8 files. Metrics that require data these files do not carry are shown as N/A and are never estimated. Resource loading is absent, so resource-conflict analysis and duration-realism testing are out of scope. CPLI, BEI and Missed Tasks are calculated because an approved baseline is present; where none exists they return N/A rather than a plan-based substitute.
The assessment reads the schedule files only. It does not read the contract, the Scope, the accompanying narrative, the early warning register or the compensation event register. Where this report refers to a compensation event it is reading the CE reference recorded against the activity in the schedule — the finding that 37 days are undeclared means no CE reference is present in the file, and should be confirmed against the CE register before the notification is issued.
This review supports the Project Manager's decision under clause 31. It does not make that decision, does not determine entitlement to time or money, and does not replace review of the accompanying narrative and the contemporaneous records. It is not a forensic delay analysis: it identifies that dates moved, not who caused the movement or who bears the risk.
Measured values at the R12 data date against the thresholds configured for this contract, with the movement from R11. Activity-level lists for every failed and watched check are available in the Excel export, keyed by the check number below.
| # | Check | R11 | R12 | Threshold | Δ | Result | Affected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Missing logic (open ends) | 4.6% | 5.0% | < 5% | ↑0.4 | WATCH | 146 |
| 02 | Leads (negative lags) | 6 | 6 | zero | — | FAIL | 6 |
| 03 | Lags | 2.9% | 3.1% | < 5% | ↑0.2 | PASS | 119 |
| 04 | Relationship types (non-FS) | 13% | 14% | < 20% | ↑1 | PASS | 1,082 |
| 05 | Hard constraints | 2.4% | 3.1% | < 2% | ↑0.7 | FAIL | 119 |
| 06 | High float (> 44 d) | 8.9% | 9.4% | < 10% | ↑0.5 | WATCH | 274 |
| 07 | Negative float | 4 | 17 | zero | ↑13 | FAIL | 17 |
| 08 | High duration (> 44 d) | 3.9% | 4.2% | < 5% | ↑0.3 | PASS | 122 |
| 09 | Invalid dates | 0 | 0 | zero | — | PASS | 0 |
| 10 | Resource loading | — | — | info | — | N/A | — |
| 11 | Missed tasks | 6.1% | 8.4% | < 5% | ↑2.3 | FAIL | 245 |
| 12 | Critical path test | pass | pass | continuous | — | PASS | 318 |
| 13 | CPLI | 0.97 | 0.94 | ≥ 0.95 | ↓0.03 | WATCH | — |
| 14 | BEI | 0.94 | 0.91 | ≥ 0.95 | ↓0.03 | WATCH | — |
| 15 | Out-of-sequence progress | 7 | 11 | zero | ↑4 | WATCH | 11 |
| 16 | Logic density | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.0–3.5 | ↑0.1 | PASS | — |
| 17 | Milestone coverage | 2.6% | 2.6% | > 2% | — | PASS | 100 |
| 18 | SPI(t) — earned schedule | 0.96 | 0.93 | ≥ 0.95 | ↓0.03 | WATCH | — |
The composite is reproducible from the values below and the rule pack versions in Appendix G.
| Layer | Basis | Raw | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1 · Technical health | 18 checks, severity-weighted (Appendix A) | 73 | 40% | 29.2 |
| L2 · Execution readiness | Mean of 8 interface health scores (Appendix C) | 64 | 25% | 16.0 |
| L3 · Completeness | 11 content requirements (Appendix D) | 45 | 20% | 9.0 |
| L4 · Contract compliance | NEC4 cl.31.3 four-reason test (section 7) | 25 | 15% | 3.8 |
| Base allowance — not applied by design | 0.0 | |||
| Composite score | 58.0 | |||
Rules are evaluated after the composite. The most severe triggered rule sets the verdict; rules that did not trigger are shown so the gate can be audited in both directions.
| Rule | Condition | Threshold | Measured | Effect if triggered | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GR-01 | Composite below acceptance minimum | ≥ 65 | 58 | Cannot accept | TRIGGERED |
| GR-02 | Negative float present at submission | 0 | 17 | Cannot accept clean | TRIGGERED |
| GR-03 | Zero-tolerance check failed (leads) | 0 | 6 | Conditions mandatory | TRIGGERED |
| GR-04 | Contract-mandatory content absent | none | 3 | Cannot baseline | not applied |
| GR-05 | Completion moved beyond notified change | ≤ 5 d | 37 d | Escalate to PM | TRIGGERED |
| GR-06 | Open ends above tolerance | < 10% | 5.0% | Cannot accept | not applied |
Required paths are derived from the WBS and activity coding for each phase pair. Health is present ÷ required, expressed 0–100.
| Interface | Req | Present | Missing | Health | Classified from | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design → Procurement | 100 | 92 | 8 | 92 | Activity code PHASE | High |
| Procurement → Fabrication | 75 | 66 | 9 | 88 | Activity code PHASE | High |
| Fabrication → Delivery | 74 | 60 | 14 | 81 | Activity code PHASE | High |
| Substructure → Superstructure | 50 | 48 | 2 | 96 | Activity code PHASE | High |
| Superstructure → Envelope | 58 | 43 | 15 | 74 | Activity code PHASE | High |
| Envelope → Fit-out | 67 | 39 | 28 | 58 | WBS path | Medium |
| Fit-out → Testing & commissioning | 48 | 12 | 36 | 25 | WBS path | Medium |
| T&C → Handover | 22 | 0 | 22 | 0 | Name lexicon | Low |
| Mean health | 494 | 360 | 134 | 64 | ||
Confidence reflects the reliability of the phase classification, which depends on activity coding. Low confidence on the final interface reflects there being too few coded handover activities to classify with certainty — the absence is itself the finding.
Present = content exists and is logic-linked. Partial = present but incompletely represented or not linked. Absent = no supporting activities.
| Requirement | State | Evidence | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Key Dates & sectional completion | PRESENT | 6 Key Dates, all logic-driven | 100 |
| Planned Completion & terminal float | PRESENT | 15 d terminal float shown separately | 100 |
| Statutory inspections & H&S holds | PRESENT | 22 activities, logic-linked | 100 |
| Access & possession dates | PARTIAL | 4 of 7 access dates modelled | 50 |
| Statutory approvals / building control | PARTIAL | Present but not linked to the work they gate | 50 |
| Temporary works & crane strategy | PARTIAL | Crane erect and dismantle only | 50 |
| Subcontractor design deliverables | PARTIAL | 3 of 9 packages represented | 50 |
| Time risk allowance | ABSENT | No provision identified — cl.31.2 requirement | 0 |
| Long-lead procurement | ABSENT | No curtain wall, lift or switchgear lead time | 0 |
| Testing & commissioning structure | ABSENT | No system-level T&C activities | 0 |
| Handover, O&M & soft landings | ABSENT | Single 10 d activity, no predecessors | 0 |
| Layer score — mean of 11 | 45 | ||
Activities whose planned dates differ between R11 and R12 with no compensation event reference, early warning or narrative entry recorded against them. Fourteen are on the R12 driving path. Extract of 12 of 23 rows, sorted by impact on Planned Completion; the complete register is in the Excel export.
| Activity ID | Name | WBS | R11 finish | R12 finish | Move | Driving |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TC-CW-4120 | Curtain wall install — L18 to L24 | Envelope | 14 Apr 27 | 02 Jun 27 | +35 d | Yes |
| TC-CW-4090 | Curtain wall install — L12 to L17 | Envelope | 26 Feb 27 | 08 Apr 27 | +29 d | Yes |
| TC-FO-5210 | Fit-out — L18 to L24 ceilings | Fit-out | 03 Jun 27 | 12 Jul 27 | +27 d | Yes |
| TC-ME-6040 | Riser installation — zone 3 | MEP | 19 Mar 27 | 23 Apr 27 | +25 d | Yes |
| TC-FO-5240 | Fit-out — L18 to L24 finishes | Fit-out | 30 Jun 27 | 03 Aug 27 | +24 d | Yes |
| TC-ME-6110 | AHU set and connect — roof plant | MEP | 07 May 27 | 04 Jun 27 | +20 d | Yes |
| TC-ST-3080 | Core slipform — L20 to roof | Superstructure | 11 Dec 26 | 05 Jan 27 | +18 d | Yes |
| TC-CW-4150 | Curtain wall — podium glazing | Envelope | 21 May 27 | 11 Jun 27 | +15 d | No |
| TC-ME-6070 | Switchgear energisation | MEP | 02 Jul 27 | 16 Jul 27 | +10 d | Yes |
| TC-FO-5310 | Lift car fit-out and commissioning | Fit-out | 13 Aug 27 | 27 Aug 27 | +10 d | Yes |
| TC-EX-7020 | External works — plaza | External | 18 Jun 27 | 25 Jun 27 | +5 d | No |
| TC-ST-3120 | Steel erection — podium roof | Superstructure | 09 Oct 26 | 14 Oct 26 | +3 d | No |
| Source | Reference | Days | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notified compensation event | CE-041 — late access, podium | 7 | DECLARED |
| Notified compensation event | CE-044 — design change, L18 riser | 5 | DECLARED |
| No reference recorded | 23 activities — see above | 37 | UNDECLARED |
| Total movement in Planned Completion | 49 | ||
Every item carries an owner, a due date and the verification test that closes it. An item closes when its test passes on re-analysis, not when it is reported as done. Items unresolved from R11 are flagged.
| ID | Severity | Finding | Required correction | Owner | Due | Verification test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA-01 | MUST | 37 days of undeclared completion movement | Provide CE references covering the movement, or restore the R11 dates. | Planning Mgr | 21 Mar | CE register reconciles to Planned Completion |
| CA-02 | MUST | Planning Mgr | 21 Mar | Allowance present and separately reported | ||
| CA-03 | MUST | 17 activities in negative float | Resolve by logic correction, constraint removal or agreed date change. | Planning Mgr | 21 Mar | Check 07 returns zero |
| CA-04 | MUST | T&C and handover absent; interfaces 7–8 empty | Develop system-level testing, commissioning and handover with logic into completion. | Construction Mgr | 04 Apr | Interfaces 7–8 health ≥ 70 |
| CA-05 | MUST | 6 leads (negative lags) R11 | Replace each with SS/FF logic and a positive or zero lag. | Planner | 21 Mar | Check 02 returns zero |
| CA-06 | MUST | Hard constraints 3.1%, up from 2.4% | Review all 119; remove any not tied to a Key Date, access date or statutory deadline. | Planner | 21 Mar | Check 05 below 2% |
| CA-07 | SHOULD | Long-lead procurement absent | Add curtain wall, lift and switchgear procurement with lead times and delivery links. | Procurement | 04 Apr | Completeness item returns present |
| CA-08 | SHOULD | 23 dates altered with no record | Produce a change log for the 23 activities; withdraw or justify each. | Planning Mgr | 21 Mar | Change log accepted by the PM |
| CA-09 | SHOULD | Envelope → Fit-out interface at 58 | Add the 28 missing handoff links between envelope completion and fit-out start by zone. | Planner | 04 Apr | Interface 6 health ≥ 75 |
| CA-10 | MONITOR | SPI(t), BEI and CPLI below 1.0 for 3 revisions | No correction required at submission. Report recovery trajectory in the R13 narrative. | Planning Mgr | R13 | Trend reviewed at the next gate |
Everything required to reproduce this assessment, or to challenge it.
The cover, report body, appendices and Excel export are generated from one model. Every count below agrees across all four outputs.
| Check | Body | Appendix | Excel | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total activities | 3,842 | 3,842 | 3,842 | AGREE |
| Incomplete activities | 2,914 | 2,914 | 2,914 | AGREE |
| Negative float activities | 17 | 17 | 17 | AGREE |
| Hard constraints | 119 | 119 | 119 | AGREE |
| Undeclared date changes | 23 | 23 | 23 | AGREE |
| Missing interface paths | 134 | 134 | 134 | AGREE |
| Role | Required action |
|---|---|
| Planner | Clear the leads, negative float and surplus hard constraints; add the missing envelope-to-fit-out links; re-run the schedule calculation. |
| Planning Manager | Reconcile the completion date movement against the CE register; identify time risk allowance; produce the change log for the 23 altered activities. |
| Construction Manager | Develop the testing, commissioning and handover sequence at system level with logic into completion. |
| Project Manager | Notify non-acceptance by 14 March citing cl.31.3 reasons (b) and (c); set the resubmission date; confirm correction owners. |
Example report using illustrative project data. Primavera and P6 are trademarks of Oracle Corporation. NEC4 is a trademark of Thomas Telford Ltd; JCT of The Joint Contracts Tribunal Ltd; FIDIC of the Fédération Internationale des Ingénieurs-Conseils. DCMA, GAO and AACE marks belong to their respective owners; ScheduleInsight is independent and is not affiliated with or endorsed by any of them.
Every figure in this report is derived from the submitted programme — no activity tagging, no phase mapping, no risk workshop. The file is parsed in your browser; nothing is uploaded and nothing is retained.