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.
One coherent forensic engagement, plus a worked example you can re-run.
The five samples below were generated from the same demonstration schedule, baselined 05-May-2025 and updated to a data date of 05-Aug-2025 as filed, which the analysis samples correct to 15-Oct-2025 (see below). The worked example uses its own four-snapshot synthetic project. The delay events in the demonstration schedule are three owner-caused (unsuitable soil at the Zone C footings, an owner-directed revision to the atrium framing, and a late curtain wall review with RFI-14 open) and three contractor-caused (late structural steel shop drawings, a short-handed steel erection crew, and elevator shaft masonry rebuilt after a failed plumb check). One schedule, five complementary forensic lenses.
That demonstration pair deliberately carries defects. One of them is a botched update: it was statused to 14-Oct-2025 but its data date was left at 05-Aug-2025, so 60 activities and one milestone hold actual dates later than the data date. The health sample reports the file as filed: it counts the 60 activities as invalid dates, a large part of why it grades the schedule F, and says what the analysis tools do instead. The analysis samples move the data date to the day after the latest actual, 15-Oct-2025, reschedule the update as P6 does, and say so in a box at the top of each report; at that date the update finishes on 03-Sep-2026, 49 working days after the 24-Jun-2026 the file reports. The file is left that way on purpose, so the samples show what the checks catch rather than a schedule with nothing to find.
Schedule Health Dashboard
Full DCMA 14-Point assessment with pass/fail per criterion, executive summary, key performance metrics, baseline-versus-current comparison, untruncated exception registers (leads, lags, high float, negative float, high duration, valid dates, missed tasks) listing every flagged activity, risk and predictive tiles, and a reproducibility manifest. This run grades F (31%), with 4 criteria passing and 9 failing. C10 is not scored, because the XER export carries no resource-assignment table, and C12 runs a network-integrity screen rather than the formal DCMA critical path test, so a clean screen is reported but not counted as a pass.
View sampleForensic Windows Analysis Dashboard
Observational/dynamic/contemporaneous as-is analysis (AACE 29R-03 §3.3) over one window, baseline to current. Completion shift broken down by cause, each change measured on the schedule: progress against the plan, then the changes the update made (owner 55 wd, contractor 28 wd, 3 wd no rule explains, shown as unattributed rather than shared out), slip velocity, float burndown, and a cumulative activity slip register with all 242 moved rows listed. The corrected update's float runs negative against its Must Finish By, so the analysis counts as critical only the 50 activities on its driving path, and says so in a box at the top.
View sampleCollapsed As-Built / But-For Analysis
A second method run against the windows result, per AACE 29R-03 §3.8 (Modeled / Subtractive / Single Simulation, Collapsed As-Built). Seven delay events, the seven activities that grew on the driving path, each removed by its measured growth, one at a time and then all together; per-event but-for finish dates with cross-reference back to the MIP 3.3 windows result. With the data date corrected, the recomputed network and the rescheduled update agree on 03-Sep-2026. Each event alone moves the finish by its full growth, and together they move it 20 of the 86 working days the windows analysis measures; the rest of the movement comes from inserted work, logic changes and lost progress, which a collapse cannot remove. The two methods land 76.7% apart, and the report marks the gap INVESTIGATE and says why on its face.
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 an 80-of-100 trust score, and the dashboard shows exactly how. Mixed-evidence intake from one folder of schedule updates and 21 dated documents (notices, an RFI and its response, change directives, shop drawing returns and progress minutes) 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 only 4.9% of the 286 positive slips have a document behind them. 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 and the engagement administration specimens, assembled on the same demonstration schedule pair. The opposing-expert data pack a client also receives is described in the custody receipt and withheld from this public copy. The worked example ships with its four XERs, the scripts that produced it and a checksums file, so the run can be repeated.
- Schedule Health Dashboard · filed-copy PDF (74 pp)
- Forensic Windows Analysis · filed-copy PDF (68 pp)
- Claim Workbench · filed-copy PDF (333 pp, complete registers)
- Collapsed As-Built · filed-copy PDF (20 pp)
- Monte Carlo SRA · filed-copy PDF (41 pp)
- MIP 3.3 Worked Example · filed-copy PDF (29 pp)
- Lens Deep Forensic sample · filed-copy PDF (68 pp)
Have a real claim that needs this treatment?
Twenty-four years of construction-schedule practice, the same toolkit behind the worked example, and an engagement billed by the hour within a written ceiling scoped to your matter. Send the file or drop a line.