What you actually get,
before you book.
Seven rendered deliverables straight from the CPP forensic toolkit: five samples and the Lens deep forensic report from one demonstration engagement, plus a worked example you can re-run yourself. Click any card to open the full interactive page. Sample data, fictional project, real methodology.
One coherent forensic engagement, plus a worked example you can re-run.
The five samples below were generated from the same demonstration schedule, baselined 01-Apr-2025 and updated to a data date of 01-Jul-2025; the sixth card, the re-runnable windows-analysis worked example, uses its own four-snapshot synthetic project. The delay events in it are two owner-caused (an authority-having-jurisdiction hold on commissioning, an owner-directed re-sequence of integrated systems testing) and one contractor-caused (punch-list and deficiency re-work). One schedule, five complementary forensic lenses.
Schedule Health Dashboard
Full DCMA 14-Point assessment with pass/fail per criterion, executive summary, key performance metrics, baseline-versus-current comparison, six untruncated exception registers (leads, lags, high float, high duration, valid dates, missed tasks) listing every flagged activity, risk and predictive tiles, and a reproducibility manifest. This run grades F, with 5 of 13 scored criteria passing. C10 is not scored because the XER export carries no resource-assignment table.
View sampleForensic Windows Analysis Dashboard
Observational/dynamic/contemporaneous as-is analysis (AACE 29R-03 §3.3) over one window, baseline to current. Completion shift, party attribution (owner 9 wd, contractor 12 wd, concurrent 0, force majeure 0, nothing unattributed), slip velocity, float burndown, and a cumulative activity slip register with all 309 moved rows listed.
View sampleCollapsed As-Built / But-For Analysis
Independent dual-method validation per AACE 29R-03 §3.8 (Modeled / Subtractive / Single Simulation, Collapsed As-Built) of the windows result. Three delay events removed from the as-built network one at a time and then all together, for a cumulative subtractive impact of 20 working days; per-event but-for finish dates with cross-reference back to the MIP 3.3 windows result.
Independent in methodology (windows + collapsed are mathematically distinct approaches); both are computed by CPP's open-source engine. See the independent-verification post for the same-author crossval caveat.
Windows Analysis You Can Re-Run Yourself
A complete four-snapshot windows analysis on a synthetic pump-station schedule: inputs downloadable, every register published whole, conventions stated before the first number, and the run reproducible with three commands. The 17-working-day answer arrives by two independent routes that agree.
Open the worked exampleMonte Carlo Schedule Risk Analysis
5,000-iteration Monte Carlo simulation over triangular duration uncertainty (optimistic 90%, most likely 100%, pessimistic 130%). P10/P25/P50/P75/P80/P85/P90/P95 completion bands measured against the deterministic CPM finish, plus a Pearson-correlation sensitivity tornado. This run has no mitigation scenario loaded, so it reports a single baseline scenario with no mitigated comparison. The random seed is fixed at 42 and recorded on the deliverable, so re-running the same schedule reproduces these percentile dates exactly rather than landing near them.
View sampleClaim Workbench Dashboard
This demonstration folder earns a 0-of-100 trust score, and the dashboard shows exactly how. Mixed-evidence intake from one folder of schedule updates and text notes produces a chronological evidence ledger, a schedule chain-diff across the snapshots, and a rolling baseline that captures as-introduced dates for activities added mid-chain. Every activity slip is auto-paired with the documents in its window, and with no emails, PDFs or workbooks in the folder, almost nothing pairs with anything beyond the schedule files themselves. That gap is the finding: the workbench measures how much of a claim the records actually carry.
View sampleDownload the pack. File the PDFs.
Every sample ships two ways: the self-contained interactive page, and a filed copy as a print-tuned PDF with every register printed in full. One ZIP carries all of them. The second ZIP is the complete engagement package: everything a client receives end to end, from the intake custody receipt through the expert report, the stamped submission binder, the opposing-expert data pack, and the engagement administration specimens, assembled on the same demonstration schedule pair.
- Schedule Health Dashboard · filed-copy PDF (82 pp)
- Forensic Windows Analysis · filed-copy PDF (57 pp)
- Claim Workbench · filed-copy PDF (405 pp, complete registers)
- Collapsed As-Built · filed-copy PDF (18 pp)
- Monte Carlo SRA · filed-copy PDF (39 pp)
- MIP 3.3 Worked Example · filed-copy PDF (29 pp)
- Lens Deep Forensic sample · filed-copy PDF (57 pp)
Have a real claim that needs this treatment?
Twenty-four years of construction-schedule practice, the same toolkit you just clicked through, and an engagement billed by the hour within a written ceiling scoped to your matter. Send the file or drop a line.