01 / REVIEW
Check the governing clauses.
Review a submitted schedule against the specification you name. See findings with activity IDs, the relevant clause, and the evidence behind each result.
Explore schedule checks Forensic schedulers · Agency and DOT review teams
Turn schedule files
into findings
you can follow.
A score is easy. This one also tells you how much of the review it could not decide — and names the evidence that would settle each part. Check governing clauses, inspect delay calculations, and keep the activity evidence, assumptions and unanswered questions in view.
Send one export and get the complete report back — no account, no charge. Prefer to look first? Open the sample schedule, go straight to the workspace, or read how access works.
Schedule reviewGenerated example
Bridge widening · Update 03
Baseline + three updates · Contract terms supplied
A computation, not an approval. The reviewing authority makes the determination.
The importer could not read all supplied material as written. Read the qualifications with the findings.
81%22 of 27 scored clauses passed
24%27 of 113 applicable clauses scored
5 failedFindings tied to the clause and the evidence.
6 need a personJudgment is identified, never filled in silently.
68 not evaluatedMissing inputs named so the review can move forward.
Plus 12 observations · SummaryOpen the sample
Measured, with scope
92.85% date/day comparison agreement · 91.91% exact timestamp/minute-float agreement in the completed minute-mode snapshot. Each uses 584,687 comparisons. These are corpus measurements, not a correctness guarantee for your schedule. Inspect the evidence ↗
From a file to an answer you can inspectKnow what the schedule says.
Know what the schedule says.
And what it doesn't.
One workflow for understanding the submission, checking its governing requirements, and tracing the basis of an analysis.
02 / ANALYSE
Make the method explicit.
Run a named delay method with its assumptions in view. All nine AACE MIPs are implemented, alongside prospective time impact analysis. Their evidence and limits are published.
Understand the methods03 / VERIFY
Leave a trail someone can follow.
Keep the inputs, settings, digests, and results together in a reproducibility record. Re-run the calculation and identify where an answer diverges.
See how verification worksThe workflowFrom “is this right?”
From “is this right?”
to “here is the basis.”
The engine reads the file, runs the checks, and exposes the unanswered questions. You bring the contract, the project context, and the judgment.
See what running it involvesStart with the schedule and its context.
Supply the baseline and updates, select the project and jurisdiction, and name the governing specification.
Read the findings with their qualifications.
Assumptions come before the results. Passed, failed, referred, and unevaluated clauses stay distinct.
Find out what would settle the gaps.
The unanswered command groups missing evidence into a worklist. Supply the contract terms and run the checks again.
Make the answer reproducible.
Export Markdown, HTML, or JSON. Record the inputs and settings so a later reviewer can retrace the computation.
Inside the generated example81% passed.
81% passed.
24% was scored.
Both numbers are true. The first describes the outcome of scored clauses. The second shows how much of the applicable review received a score.
All 113 applicable clauses27 scored / 113 applicable = 24% coverage
- 22 passed
- 5 failed
- 12 observations
- 6 need a person
- 68 not evaluated
Only the 27 scored clauses22 passed / 27 scored = 81% score
An observation, a referral, or an unevaluated clause is not a pass. Inspect the complete results ↗
One applicable clause, plus the schedule and whatever contract terms you suppliedFive outcomes. Only two of them are a score.
- Passed
The clause was decided, and the schedule meets it. Counts toward the score.
- Failed
The clause was decided, and the schedule does not meet it. Reported with the activity and the evidence. Counts toward the score.
- Observation
Something worth a reviewer's attention that the clause does not turn into a pass or a fail. Not a score.
- Needs a person
The clause turns on professional judgment. The evidence is assembled and the question is stated; the answer is not guessed. Not a score.
- Not evaluated
A required input was missing. The check names what it needs instead of inserting a default. Not a score — and this is the one that becomes your evidence request.
This is the whole design. A missing input never becomes a pass, so the score never quietly absorbs the part of the review nobody did. That is why the sample above reports 81% and 24% side by side rather than one number. Run it on your own schedule ↗
One finding, traced
Does the reported path span the schedule?
The example reports a five-activity path beginning at CURE. Its start is later than the earliest activity in the network—a finding worth inspecting, with an arithmetic qualification attached.
Read the finding and its basis ↗- CURE
- PAVE
- STRIPE
- PUNCH
- OPEN
- Earliest activity in network
- 2 March 2026
- Reported path starts at CURE
- 1 June 2026
Sequence only; not a duration chart. This finding depends on computed arithmetic. Recompute in P6 before relying on it.
Designed for scrutinyA confident number
A confident number
isn't the whole answer.
A review can pass most of the clauses it checked and still leave most of the schedule unchecked. That is why score and coverage always travel together.
Missing evidence never becomes a pass.
A check that lacks a required input reports “not evaluated” and names what it needs. It does not quietly insert a default.
Professional judgment stays with a person.
A clause registered as judgment cannot return a pass. The tool assembles evidence and states the question for the reviewer.
The method is part of the answer.
An ambiguous method name is refused rather than guessed. Different methods can give different results on the same events; the method and choices belong beside the number.
Limitations belong in the open.
Whole-day arithmetic, limited evidence for some file formats, and the current validation gaps are documented. Read those limits before using a computed date or float.
Grounded in the documents you work withThe clause.
The clause.
The context.
The qualification.
Checks reference published scheduling specifications and analysis standards. Naming a guide does not make it contractually binding; the governing documents and their precedence must be stated.
UFGSAACEASCE 67-17SCL ProtocolGAOState DOT specifications
Read formats. Unequal evidence.
Readers cover Primavera P6 XER, P6 XML, Microsoft Project XML, and USACE SDEF. The external corpus evidence is XER; the other readers rely on the project's own tests. Binary .mpp files are not supported.
Explore formats and coverageThe shortest way to find outSee it on your own schedule.
Run it on your schedule See it on your own schedule.
Then decide.
Send one export. You get the complete deliverable back — findings, the clauses it refused to decide, and the evidence that would settle them. No account, no charge, and no obligation. For a project in dispute, route file sharing through your counsel of record.
No file to send? Arrange a walkthrough ↗Source: web/pages/index.md. Source commit date: 2026-09-11.