The project finish date has moved by 15 working days due to duration increases on critical-path activities, with the observed completion movement confirmed at this duration. This delay is significant and concentrated on key operations, particularly piling and excavation, which together account for the majority of the shift. The schedule’s reliability is undermined by critical-path divergence affecting 68 activities and a BEI of 0.92, falling below the DCMA §14 threshold for acceptable scheduling practice. To verify these findings, review the analysis of critical-path activity durations and the flagged discrepancies between traced and stored critical-path data.

This comparison reports three delay figures. They measure different things and are not expected to match:

• Observed movement (+15 working days) — what actually happened to the completion date. This is the figure to rely on.
• Engine-attributed (+15 working days, 4 critical-path changes) — where the analysis could trace the movement to specific changes. Overlapping causes are counted more than once, so read this as a map of where pressure built up, not as a delay total.
• Individual impacts added up (+15 working days, 4 changes) — each change measured on its own. Real delays interact, so the separate pieces are not expected to add up to the whole.

Why this matters: use the observed movement as the bottom line — it is what happened to the finish date. The other two figures help a delay analyst see where and how the change arose, not by how much the project as a whole moved.

The project completion date has moved from 8 June 2028 to 29 June 2028, representing a shift of +15 working days, which stands as the authoritative measure of schedule impact. The summed activity-level slip, quantified as +29 working days, reflects the total of all individual activity delays, duration extensions, and added scope, serving as an indicator of schedule churn and structural change rather than direct project impact — a smaller completion movement against a larger summed slip suggests significant internal rescheduling or float absorption. This figure provides a sanity check on the completion movement and forms the denominator for the subsequent breakdown by work package. The "Where to investigate" data identifies locations in the schedule where logic, constraints or calendars were modified, with the Superstructure package being the most affected, indicating where changes to network topology may have influenced critical path flow. These topology edits are directional signals only, as the system does not perform calendar-aware Time Impact Analysis per event to isolate individual working-day impacts.

The contractual and progress milestones detected on the two schedules, with the calendar-day variance between their planned finish dates.

Only milestones present on both sides of the comparison are shown — one-sided entries are scope moves that would make the variance column unreadable if included.

Variance is shown in calendar days (consistent with how EOT claims are commonly stated) so the figure matches the way the contract will evaluate it.

Reading this chart. Three cumulative curves over time: the baseline's planned value (dashed grey), the current plan's planned value (solid blue), and the actual earned value on the update (solid red). Gap between the dashed grey and solid blue lines shows re-planning (work pushed into future periods, independent of actual progress). Gap between solid blue and solid red at the data date shows the current execution gap.

Acronyms. PV = Planned Value (share of total scheduled work due by a date). EV = Earned Value (share actually achieved). SV = Schedule Variance = EV − PV, in working-day equivalents. SPI = Schedule Performance Index = EV ÷ PV; < 1.00 ⇒ behind plan. Printed in the chart title at the data date.

Why duration-weighted. Cost-based EVM (AC / CV / CPI) is not computed because P6 exports routinely strip resource and cost tables. Duration-weighting — each activity contributes in proportion to its original working-day duration — is the industry standard fallback per AACE RP 27R-03. Full formula in METHODOLOGY §5d.

What this section answers: where else forward risk is concentrated besides the controlling chain. Each row is an alternative chain to the project endpoint that's within 20 working days of the critical path; any of them could become controlling with a small slip.

Four float paths fall within twenty working days of the controlling critical path, with three of these chains already at zero float and one at five working days of float. The cluster is dominated by zero-float paths, indicating multiple sequences are already critical and contributing to the project’s completion date. Multiple near-critical paths matter because even a small delay in any of them could shift the controlling path and further impact the project finish date.

As of the data date, 23.4% of the project scope has been completed based on earned value. The current earned-value trend implies a completion date later than the stored finish, indicating a delay relative to the original plan. The forecast table presents alternative completion dates under different productivity-factor assumptions, illustrating how sensitive the outcome is to changes in performance efficiency. This panel serves as a high-level sanity check and does not replace a detailed critical-path recalculation.

Indicative only. The PF rows apply the named productivity factor to remaining durations on labour activities (procurement / milestones are not scaled) and re-trace the longest path. They do not re-level resources, re-apply calendars, or re-optimise logic — use alongside a native P6 re-schedule for any contractual decision (METHODOLOGY §5b).

DCMA 14-Point Assessment: 8 pass, 5 fail, 1 not assessed.

SCL Appendix B compliance: 6 present, 0 partial, 1 not assessed.

App B §1 — Milestone scheduled / forecast / actual dates. 8 milestone(s) tracked with planned, forecast, and actual dates.

App B §2 — Critical activity identification. Critical and near-critical paths are identified by an independent longest-path trace alongside the schedule's stored is_critical flags.

App B §3 — Progress against baseline. 148 activities matched between baseline and update.

App B §4 — Narrative of changes in the period. Changes are summarised by WBS package and accompanied by recommended next actions.

App B §5 — Period delay enumeration with cause. 5 delay event(s) itemised; 3 (60%) carry both quantified impact and assigned entitlement classification. The remainder are topology events (direction-of-travel signals not sized without TIA) or events the rule-based classifier could not determine origin for from the description alone.

App B §6 — Acceleration measures. No duration reductions detected; activities were not shortened between baseline and update. The App B §6 answer for this period is 'no acceleration measures.'

App B §7 — Risk events. Not assessed by this engine. App B §7 requires identification of risks materialised in the period and forward-looking risks affecting the schedule, sourced primarily from the project's risk register and Monte Carlo schedule risk analysis (where applicable). Neither input is available to a schedule-only engine — this analysis is based on schedule files alone. The contractor's own risk register and any SRA outputs should be referenced alongside this report to address App B §7.

Delay events aggregated by the work breakdown structure node of each affected activity.

Top 5 work packages by critical-path delay contribution:

• Foundation Piling — +10 working days total · +10 working days critical · 2 events (2 critical)
• Excavation — +5 working days total · +5 working days critical · 1 events (1 critical)
• Plumbing & Fire — +14 working days total · 0 working days critical · 1 events (0 critical)

The full rollup — every WBS node with a recorded event — is in the Excel appendix under the Delay Register sheet (filter by WBS column).

Activities that exist in one schedule but not the other. Added activities represent new scope; removed activities represent scope deletion.

• Added activities: 1 (total planned duration 14 working days)
• Removed activities: 0

The activity matching process uses four cascading strategies before an activity falls into these pools:

• Exact ID
• Normalised ID
• Name plus WBS path
• Name-only fallback

Surviving entries are genuine scope changes, not renumbering or WBS-restructuring artefacts.

Full per-activity lists (every added and removed activity) are in the Excel appendix under the Scope Changes tab.

The largest critical event on this analysis is dur:SUB-210 (SUB-210), a Duration change event with +6 working days of attributed delay. The recommendations below should be applied to this event as a priority before the lower-impact items.

Concrete next actions derived from this analysis. Every recommendation below references a specific number, finding, or warning elsewhere in the report — nothing speculative.

Industry precedent (AACE RP 29R-03 §4.3; CIOB Guide §5.5) treats this section as a required deliverable element of any forensic report.

• Prepare narrative and evidence for the 2 critical events with a material TIA (≥5 working-day isolated impact on the project finish; largest = 6 wd). The TIA column in the delay register carries the per-event figure; for each flagged event the forensic record should document cause, contractual position, and supporting documentation (AACE MIP 3.4, CIOB §5.8.34–5.8.43).
• Review the 1 added activity event(s) flagged 'Not assessed' in the Entitlement column. The classifier could not determine origin from the description alone; these need to be checked against the variation register and contract to assign an Employer risk / Contractor risk classification.

This section lists time windows where two or more independent critical delay events overlap. The "net impact" column shows the delay days that flow through to the project completion date under the methodology named in the disclosure at the top of the report; the "absorbed" column shows delay days that would otherwise have been counted twice and are removed from the total.

The delay register contains 3 measurable critical events. None met the SCL §10.4 independence test for concurrency — the events are either causally linked in the schedule network (one activity is upstream of the other in either the baseline or the update) or their time windows do not overlap. This is a defensible zero, not an absence of analysis: SCL true concurrency requires two or more independent critical chains contending for the finish during the same period. Where a schedule shows a single dominant delay chain — for example a vendor procurement sequence or a commissioning chain — the events on that chain are causally linked and correctly excluded. Where two or more independent chains exist, this section will populate with the windows during which they overlap. Review the delay register and the schedule logic to confirm the chain structure is expected.

This report assesses the uploaded schedule against the published industry standards listed below. Each finding traces to a specific rule in one or more of those standards. The analysis is automated and deterministic — the same schedule file will always produce the same findings.

Scope of this analysis. This report is based solely on the schedule file(s) you uploaded. Determinations that — under AACE RP 29R-03, the SCL Delay & Disruption Protocol, or other cited standards — require evidence outside the schedule file have been flagged as candidates rather than concluded. Specifically, the following determinations and analyses require manual verification by a qualified delay analyst before being relied on for contractual purposes:

• Pacing vs concurrency — distinguishing contractor pacing (AACE §4.2.F / SCL §10) from independent concurrent delay requires contemporaneous notice, correspondence, and resource records that are outside the scope of schedule-only analysis.
• Constructive acceleration — identifying directed or constructive acceleration (AACE §4.4) requires correspondence and contract notices not available to the engine.
• Contractual classification — categorising delay events as excusable, compensable, or non-excusable depends on contract terms outside the schedule file.
• Concurrency during the overlap window — the SCL §10.4 test asks whether two delays were both critical during their overlap. The engine evaluates this as the union of baseline-side and update-side critical-path membership, which is a snapshot-level approximation of the window-level test. A precise test would require a CPM walk per overlap interval, which is outside V1 scope. The approximation will under-detect concurrency where an activity was on the critical path only during a sub-window of the overlap and not at either snapshot date.
• As-built critical path — the report does not produce a stitched as-built critical path across multiple updates. On comparison reports the per-update critical path is shown for each schedule in the comparison (Driving Path section); on series reports an interim methodology paragraph describes the per-period substitute. A V1.1 release will add a cross-period as-built CP synthesis section to the series report Brief layer.
• Engine-attributed-vs-observed divergence — the engine's net-delay figure is an attribution of observed completion movement to specific activity-level events. It can diverge from the observed figure in either direction. Undercount divergence (engine attributes less than observed) typically reflects unquantified topology changes, scope absorption, or parallel-path absorption the activity-level formula cannot capture without a CPM recalculation. Overstate divergence (engine attributes more than observed) typically reflects double-counting along a critical chain, scope-add events whose full duration is being counted, or concurrency absorption gaps. In both directions the observed figure is authoritative for the headline; the engine-attributed figure is a subordinate diagnostic surfacing what specific events contributed.

Where the engine raises a candidate flag for any of these determinations, the relevant section explicitly says so. The engine does produce a rule-based first-pass entitlement classification on each delay-register row (Employer risk, Contractor risk, Neutral, Concurrent, or Not Assessed) — this is a preliminary tagging based on activity-description keywords and category defaults, not a contractual determination. The classification is presented as '(prelim.)' in the column header and every row carries a review-note prompt to verify against the contract, the variation register, NCRs, and documentary evidence before relying on it.

ScheduleLens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or certified by AACE International, the Project Management Institute, the Defense Contract Management Agency, the Chartered Institute of Building, the Society of Construction Law, or the Government Accountability Office. Citations to these standards in this report are bibliographic, indicating the analytical basis for each check.