The project finish date has moved by fifteen working days, driven primarily by duration increases on critical piling and excavation activities. This shift is concentrated in the substructure phase, where three duration changes account for the full observed delay, while the schedule's reliability is undermined by a critical path divergence on sixty-eight activities and a Baseline Execution Index of 0.91. The presence of seventy activities with negative float further indicates that the current programme logic may not accurately reflect the remaining work sequence. The reader should review the critical path divergence disclosure and the top critical events table to verify the integrity of the delay drivers.

The schedule reports a completion movement of fifteen working days, which stands as the authoritative delay figure for this period. The table below breaks down the activity-level drivers—duration changes, progress shortfalls, and added scope—to show where pressure built up, rather than to sum a project delay total. Because each activity is measured independently, parallel paths and float-absorbed slip are included in these categories without adding to the final completion movement. The topology section identifies where the schedule was rewired, such as in the Superstructure package, but does not size the isolated working-day impact of each edit. This limitation exists because isolating individual topology events requires a calendar-aware critical path method pass per event, as described in Methodology §5a.

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.

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 sit within twenty working days of the critical path, with the cluster dominated by zero-float chains that are already critical. Multiple sub-critical paths present forward risk because any of them could become controlling with a small slip in duration or logic. The table below details these paths, ranked by float, to illustrate the breadth of schedule sensitivity.

Top 3 of 5 shown — the full 5-path table and the float-path overlay chart are in the Narrative layer.

What this section answers: which near-critical chains are burning float across updates — an early warning that fires before a path goes critical and shows up in the delay register. Float consumed is the like-for-like drop in total float since the baseline, excluding activities whose constraint or calendar changed.

127 activities eroded float since the baseline, a median of 15 working days each (2198 working days in aggregate). The median is the typical per-activity erosion; the aggregate runs far larger on a broad schedule and shouldn't be read as the delay to completion. The most-eroded near-critical path is rank 1 (driving activity PRE-130 — Building control submission), down 911 working days and now at 0 working days of float.

The schedule update at the data date of 2026-03-06 reports an unstable earned-value trajectory, which does not support a single implied finish date. Consequently, the forecast indicates a later completion than the stored plan, with the extent of the delay dependent on future productivity assumptions. The productivity-factor rows illustrate the sensitivity of the completion date to these assumptions, ranging from a conservative scenario to one with realistic ambition. This panel serves as a sanity check for the overall schedule health and does not replace a full critical-path recalculation.

Remaining-plan compression: 1.40× the demonstrated production rate — significant compression (required 0.113 vs demonstrated 0.080 pp/day; band thresholds 1.10 / 1.35 / 1.75 are heuristic calibration — a feasibility flag, not a determination). The remaining plan asks for roughly 40 % faster production than the recent demonstrated pace, sustained to completion — out-performance of a kind the recent history does not show. At the demonstrated rate the plan crosses the severe-compression threshold around 2027-04-03.

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: 6 pass, 5 fail, 3 not assessed.

The full 14-item scorecard (every measured value, passing items included) is in the Narrative layer; per-check offender lists are in the appendix and the Excel workbook's DCMA detail sheet.

The full set of near-critical chains behind the Brief-layer float-path callout, with the overlay chart showing when each chain lands on the calendar. The Excel appendix carries the complete per-activity list per path.

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.

DCMA 14-Point Assessment: 6 pass, 5 fail, 3 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. 6 delay event(s) itemised; 4 (67%) 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)
• Permits & Approvals — +4 working days total · +4 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 SUB-210 — Piling rig mobilisation, 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 isolated contribution (≥5 working-day movement of the project finish; largest = 6 wd). That 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.
• 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 4 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.

The activities and relationships behind each failing DCMA item, most severe first. Tables are capped at 20 rows; the Excel appendix's “DCMA detail” sheet carries the full lists.

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.
• Recomputed total float — float and criticality figures throughout this report (including the DCMA float checks, float paths, and near-critical detection) are recalculated from the schedule's own logic, durations, and calendars, because as-submitted float is absent from a large share of real exports. The recalculation applies Retained Logic/Progress Override per the file's scheduling options but does not model Start/Finish-No-Later-Than or As-Late-As-Possible constraints, Expected Finish forcing, or an imposed must-finish date — on schedules using those features the recomputed float can differ from the value the source tool displays. The as-submitted float is preserved and compared against the recomputed value by the stale-critical-path check.
• 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.