Skip to main content
Sample Deliverables

What you actually get,
before you book.

Five rendered deliverables straight from the CPP forensic toolkit. Click any sample to open the full interactive dashboard. Sample data, fictional project, real methodology.

Live HTML Each link opens the actual artifact a CPP engagement produces — not a screenshot. Self-contained pages render offline. AACE-aligned methodology stamped throughout.

EngagementNorthern Ontario Industrial Facility Expansion — Phase 2
OwnerLakeshore Holdings Ltd.
ContractorMeridian Construction Group Ltd.
ContractCCDC2 · ~$45M CAD
Duration~14 months
The Five Samples

One coherent forensic engagement, five deliverables.

Each sample below was generated from the same synthetic project — owner-caused RFI delays, contractor-caused crew shortages, and concurrent weather events spread across a 14-month build. The same engagement, viewed through five complementary forensic lenses.

DCMA 14-Point · GAO-16-89G · CPP Quality Overlay

Schedule Health Dashboard

Full DCMA 14-Point assessment with pass/fail per criterion, GAO 10 Best Practices scoring, CPP Schedule Quality Overlay (A–F grade across six categories), AI Executive Summary, baseline-vs-current slip register, and reproducibility manifest. The same dashboard a federal contracting officer would sign off on.

View sample
self-contained · 4.0 MB ~80–150 activities baseline + current XER
AACE MIP 3.3 · Windows Analysis

Forensic Windows Analysis Dashboard

Three-window observational/dynamic/contemporaneous as-is analysis (AACE 29R-03 §3.3) across the project life. Per-window completion shifts, attribution split (Owner/Contractor/Concurrent), critical-path duration growth, milestone slip register with responsible-party assignment.

View sample
3 windows analyzed +93d cumulative slip baseline + 3 update XERs
AACE MIP 3.8 · Modeled / Subtractive / Single Base

Collapsed As-Built / But-For Analysis

Independent dual-method validation per AACE 29R-03 §3.8 (Modeled / Subtractive / Single Base — Collapsed As-Built) of the windows result. Eight delay events removed from the as-built network one at a time and cumulatively; 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 DAUBERT.md §3 for the same-author crossval caveat.*

View sample
8 delay events dual-method gap reported SCL §11.5 · Wickwire Ch. 10
AACE 122R-22 QRAMM · Monte Carlo

Monte Carlo Schedule Risk Analysis

5,000-iteration Monte Carlo simulation over duration uncertainty distributions (triangular). P10/P25/P50/P75/P80/P85/P90/P95 completion bands, sensitivity tornado of activity drivers, baseline-vs-mitigated scenario delta showing which mitigations move the P80 needle.

View sample
5,000 iterations · seed 42 P50/P80 mitigation delta 282 activity drivers ranked
Forensic Workbench · Evidence Ledger

Claim Workbench Dashboard

Mixed-evidence intake from one folder: 5 XER updates, 8 PDFs, 4 DOCXs. Produces evidence ledger, schedule chain-diff (TASKPRED edits, retroactive baseline edits, completion reversals), rolling baseline, statistical trust score, and slip-to-evidence pairings auto-keyed by date and activity code.

View sample
17 evidence items 11 manipulations logged 100% slip-to-evidence pairing
!
Demo preview — not for litigation use. The five linked deliverables are rendered from synthetic project data on a fictional engagement (Northern Ontario Industrial Facility Expansion — Phase 2; Lakeshore Holdings Ltd. · Meridian Construction Group Ltd. are not real entities). The methodology, math, and dashboard format are exactly what a CPP engagement produces. Activity codes, RFI numbers, change orders, and party assignments are illustrative and chosen to exercise the full range of forensic detectors.

Have a real claim that needs this treatment?

Twenty-five years of construction-schedule practice, the same toolkit you just clicked through, and a fixed-fee engagement scoped to your matter. Send the file or drop a line.

dana@criticalpathpartners.ca → Read a Case Study