It is built from the record, not from the internet.
The firm authorizes a set of sources. The model reads those and nothing else.
The project record
Identifies every source that bears on the issue and connects it to what it changes.
See the record
Schedule
Tests the critical path against the events and records said to drive it.
See the schedule analysis
20.1
If the Contractor considers himself to be entitled to any extension of the Time for Completion, the Contractor shall give notice to the Engineer describing the event giving rise to the claim.
The notice shall be given as soon as practicable, and not later than 28 days after the Contractor became aware, or should have become aware, of the event.
If the Contractor fails to give notice within this period, the Time for Completion shall not be extended and the Owner shall be discharged from all liability.
Tested against the record
Aware of event
12 Mar · RFI 184
Notice served
27 Mar · Letter 0912
Elapsed
15 days
Condition precedent satisfied.
Entitlement
Connects contract language, notices, and dates to the facts that satisfy them.
See entitlement
Damages
Carries each claimed cost back to the events said to have caused it, and revises it as the record moves.
See damagesThe whole dispute, in one current state.
Every part is held against every other part, so a change in one shows up in the rest.
The contract
Obligations, conditions precedent, and the notice regime that governs entitlement.
The record
Every contemporaneous document, tied to the issue it bears on.
The schedule
Each revision, what changed in its logic, and what that did to the critical path.
The claims
Each entitlement argument and the chain of facts it stands on.
The costs
Money traced to the event said to have caused it, or marked where it is not.
The proceeding
Directions, deadlines, and what has to be ready by when.
Nothing changes silently.
Every change is versioned, attributable, and reversible.
Matter ledger
Versioned, attributable, reversible
- 2026-03-14 09:12New evidenceProduction 0042 · superintendent email, 12 MarIntakev.31
- 2026-03-14 09:41Material questionDoes the 12 Mar email authorize the acceleration?Matter Model
- 2026-03-14 15:03Firm instructionPreserve concurrency defense; log authorization as openFirm · A. Rourke
- 2026-03-14 15:20Proposed updateNotice-validity proposition strengthenedMatter Model
- 2026-03-14 15:47Hidden examinationExamination built from the matter, held back from the modelExamination
- 2026-03-14 15:49Applied to matterChange applied to the live matterExaminationv.32
It stops where the record stops.
When the answer is not in the record, it asks rather than assumes.
Matter
Meridian Constructors v. Halton Infrastructure
Issue
04 · 27 Mar
Material question
Should the concurrent-delay defense remain in the reply brief?
Why it matters
Dropping it simplifies the primary critical-path argument, but may forfeit the fallback if the court accepts the owner’s sequencing evidence.
Evidence reviewed
- Daily reports, March 3–17
- P6 update revision 14
- Superintendent correspondence
- Delay notice dated March 12
What changes
- Reply brief
- Deposition plan
- Expert instructions
- Settlement analysis
Current assessment
Preserve the defense in one paragraph unless further evidence resolves the authorization issue.
You can see what is ready and what is not.
Status per issue, in words, with no score and no percentage.
Readiness, per issue
Pre-hearing
- Extension of time · differing site conditionProven
- Notice validity under cl. 20.1Proven
- Concurrent-delay defenseDisputed
- Acceleration instruction (oral)Firm decision required
- Loss-of-productivity measurementExpert required
- Home office overhead basisOpen
- Escalation on late change ordersNot examined
Prove it on your own matter.
Give Teloform the authorized project record while your team’s final analysis stays separate, then compare the two.