01
The problem
The record is fragmented before analysis begins.
Delay disputes turn on causation, but the evidence is fragmented across schedules, correspondence, minutes and site records. Reconstructing those sources in separate silos makes the analysis slow, expensive, incomplete and difficult to audit.
02
The record
The record is evidence. It is also the obstacle.
Project records were not written for expert evidence. Each forms a data point that tells part of the sequence differently.
Correspondence
Instructions, notices and admissions may carry sent, received, forwarded and event dates. Their roles must not be collapsed.
Site diaries
What actually happened on site, recorded before anyone knew which day would be disputed.
Minutes
The meeting date and issue date may differ; both can matter when reconstructing sequence.
Programmes
Each revision carries a data date, issue context and schedule logic that must remain tied to that version.
03
Where it goes wrong
Three recurring failure modes.
The failures are structural. They follow from reconstructing a mixed record by hand, under time pressure.
Senior time goes into reconstruction
A disproportionate share of senior time can be spent establishing and reconciling the factual record.
The analysis arrives after decisions are due
Critical settlement and strategy decisions are often made before the record has been reconstructed.
Unsupported steps become attack points
An opponent can weaken the analysis by exposing a factual step that cannot be independently checked.
04
What is needed
A defensible analysis keeps five properties visible throughout a large, mixed record.
It shows what was processed, what failed, what remains uncertain and which decisions are the expert’s.
Properties of a defensible analysis
05
Briefing
Request a demo.
We are opening Exhibit29 to a small number of forensic delay practices. Tell us how you work and we will arrange a private product briefing.