Establish what actually happened.
Delay analysis and claim files built on evidence. Alètheia reconstructs the real course of the project and measures the delays, with their causes.
Let’s talk about your recordThe problem
-
The facts exist, buried in thousands of letters, minutes and schedules.
-
When the claim lands, everyone rebuilds the story from memory.
-
And the best-documented account wins, not necessarily the true one.
The model
The method is chosen and fixed before looking at the result. It is the only way a delay analysis survives challenge.
- methodnamed before the analysis, not picked afterwards
- datathe dated schedule and the items received, nothing else
- windowthe period over which delay is attributed
- assumptionstated explicitly, including when it works against you
- reproduciblesame data, same method, same result
- adversarialmethod and sources are disclosed with the result
Methods
-
Queryable
The evidence file answers a question asked in plain language
« What items support the attribution in window 2? » The agent names the sources behind each conclusion. An analysis you can question is an analysis you can challenge: that is the point.
-
Windows
The project is cut into periods, delay attributed period by period
Time Slice Windows. You do not compare start and end and hope the gap explains itself: you look at where the slippage happens.
-
Planned / built
The contract schedule set against what actually happened
As-Planned versus As-Built. The most readable method in a meeting, the most fragile when data is missing: it then says so.
-
Collapse
An event is removed to measure what it cost
Collapsed As-Built. Without the weather, without the late instruction: what delay was left?
-
Concurrency
Delays running at the same time are identified
Two simultaneous causes do not add up. Concurrency candidates are exposed, not silently arbitrated.
-
Reconstruction
The schedule as it stood on the date
Not as remembered, nor as corrected since. It is the basis of any contemporaneous analysis.
-
The window 2 slippage stems from the wait for the package 3 shop drawingsSite meeting minutes no. 22“the package 3 shop drawings have not been received to date”, notified on 21 MarchSite instruction no. 7“works on package 3 suspended pending the drawings” and lifted on 9 AprilDesign team letter ref. 2026-041“issue of the shop drawings, revision C”.
3 items cited · no statement without its source
TraceabilityEvery conclusion points to its evidence
A statement without its document is not a conclusion, it is an opinion. The report tells them apart.
Against current practice
| Current practice | With the engine | |
|---|---|---|
| Checking a conclusion | ask the analyst again | ask, and get the sources |
| Choice of method | after seeing the result | fixed before the analysis |
| Schedule state | from memory, or the latest file | reconstructed at the chosen date |
| Concurrent delays | settled on expert say-so | candidates identified and exposed |
| Reproducibility | depends on the analyst | same data, same result |
| Sources | cited when found | every conclusion points to its item |
| Adversarial | the other side sees only the conclusion | method and data disclosed with it |
Accepted inputs
What the engine does not do
It does not state the law. Establishing a fact is not qualifying it. Attributing liability and interpreting the contract are a lawyer’s work; the engine produces the material, not the legal conclusion.
It does not conclude without data. If a period’s records are missing, it says so and stops there. An analysis that fills gaps is not defensible.
It does not replace the expert. It does the long, reproducible work. Judgement on what the facts mean stays human, and signed.