Retrospective method
As-planned versus as-built
Compare what was planned with what happened, within periods, reasoning from the progress record.
- Jurisdiction
- General method guidance, not jurisdiction specific
- Law and editions as at
- 3 August 2026
- Last reviewed
- 3 August 2026
- Editorial status
- Editorial draft, not yet independently reviewed
The question it answers
Where did the works diverge from the plan, and what accounts for the divergence?
Simpler works, or projects where programme updates are missing but the as-built record is good.
Minimum evidence
- A credible baseline
- A detailed as-built record: diaries, quantities, inspections and dates
This method depends more on the analyst than the others, because the reasoning is narrative rather than calculated. That is not a defect, but it does mean the reasoning has to be exposed step by step: which activities, which period, which evidence, which alternative causes considered.
It pairs well with a documented as-built chronology, and badly with an as-built reconstructed from the claim rather than the record.
Strengths
- Transparent and accessible to a reader who does not run scheduling software
- Works where the update history does not exist
Frequent failures
- Planned logic quietly treated as actual logic
- Concurrency hidden by comparing totals rather than periods
- Divergence assumed to be caused by the claimed event
Mandatory caution
Use subperiods and causal evidence where the works are complex. A whole-project comparison of planned against as-built is a description of the outcome, not an explanation of it.
Other methods
Where the record comes in
Every mechanism on this page turns on evidence: what happened, what was known and when. A record built as the job happens is worth more than any argument assembled afterwards. Construction Metric keeps that record automatically, from the messages, photographs and voice notes a site team already sends.
Built by AI Metric
The analysis on this site is only as fast as the evidence behind it. AI Metric builds bespoke systems for consultancies, contractors and claims teams: document and correspondence triage, event registers assembled from the project record, programme and cost reconciliation, and drafting support that always cites the document it came from. Built for review by your own experts, never to replace their judgement.
Do not overread this page
No method decides entitlement, and no method is court approved. A method is fit when it answers the relevant question with the reliable data available, respects the contract and the governing law, and survives alternative explanations. The choice must be explained and defended, not asserted.
General explanation of how contract mechanisms, analysis methods and legal principles generally work. It is not legal or contractual advice, not an opinion on any project, and no standard-form contract wording is reproduced anywhere on this site. Standard forms are routinely amended, so every default described here, including every time period, can be different on your project. Your executed contract, as amended, and the governing law and forum always control. Deadlines may already be running: if an event has occurred, preserve your position and take qualified advice.