Guided Workshop Activities and Integrated Project Output - Complete Worked Example

Guided Workshop Activities and Integrated Project Output — Complete Worked Example

CPM, Pert, and S-Curve Training Module

This companion example follows one fictional irrigation project through every Module 6 activity. It demonstrates the participant inputs, controlled Google Sheet records, validations, CPM and PERT computations, S-Curve and Earned Value analysis, recovery screening, management reporting, and AI validation. Every simulation is placed beside the table and calculation that produces it.

$Training-Use Disclaimer$

All names, dates, amounts, quantities, events, graphs, calculations, and conclusions below are fictional and intended only for instruction. The visualizations are simulations and do not establish actual project status, contractual entitlement, official agency action, or an approved completion forecast.

$Evidence-First Workshop Navigation$

Use the controlled tables and documented reporting cutoff for each graph and calculation in the integrated case.

Step-by-Step Solution

0 of 3 Steps Completed

Visual Output Index

Visual	Example-data question answered	Activity
Activity weight and earned-contribution graph	Where is the missing physical accomplishment located?	Activity 1
CPM network graph	Which paths are critical, and which activity currently controls?	Activity 2A
PERT probability curve	How does the target duration change completion confidence?	Activity 2A
Early/late/actual S-Curve	When did actual progress leave the planned envelope?	Activity 2B
Earned Value bar graph	How do PV, EV, and AC compare at the same cutoff?	Activity 2B
Recovery-screening timeline	What is the approximate remaining-duration effect of a second crew?	Activity 3

I. Fictional Project Used Throughout the Workshop

Field	Simulated value	Data class	Source reference
Project ID	NIA-PANG-LC3-2026	Baseline	Project Registry
Project title	Rehabilitation and Concrete Lining of Lateral Canal LC-3	Baseline	Contract
Location	San Manuel, Pangasinan	Baseline	Contract
Facility type	Concrete-lined irrigation canal	Baseline	Program of Work
Implementing office	NIA Pangasinan Irrigation Management Office	Baseline	Contract
Contractor	ABC Infrastructure Builders — fictional	Baseline	Contract
Contract amount	PHP 10,000,000.00	Baseline	Contract and BOQ
Notice to Proceed	1 June 2026	Baseline	NTP-LC3-2026-01
Approved duration	50 working days	Baseline	CPM-LC3-BASELINE
Original target completion	7 August 2026	Baseline	Contract calendar
Approved revised completion	Not applicable — no approved revision	Approved revision	Project Registry
Reporting cutoff	End of Working Day 40	Analysis boundary	Workshop dataset
Planned accomplishment at cutoff	90.00 percent	Baseline	S-Curve baseline
Verified actual accomplishment	76.00 percent	Actual	Inspection and quantity records
Current variance	Negative 14.00 percentage points	Calculated	S-Curve worksheet

$Scheduling Convention$

The example uses a day-zero convention for CPM calculations. Durations are working days. Numeric working-day positions are used so the network logic can be checked independently from calendar-date conversion.

Activity 1 — Centralized Project Data Gathering and Validation

Example 1 — Project Registry and Source-Document Inventory

$Establishing the Analysis Boundary$

The group records the reporting cutoff before entering actual progress. Every accomplishment, constraint, photograph, equipment event, and report statement must refer to a condition on or before Working Day 40.

Completed Source-Document Inventory

Document or record	Availability	Simulated reference	Evidence level	Data status	Use in analysis
Approved Program of Work	Available	POW-LC3-REV0	Level 1	VER	Scope and activity weights
Bill of Quantities	Available	BOQ-LC3-REV0	Level 1	VER	Quantities and cost weights
Approved construction schedule	Available	CPM-LC3-BASELINE	Level 1	VER	Durations and relationships
Notice to Proceed	Available	NTP-LC3-2026-01	Level 1	VER	Schedule origin
Daily inspection reports	Available	DIR Day 1–40	Level 2	VER	Actual dates and conditions
Weekly accomplishment reports	Available	WAR Week 1–8	Level 2	VER	Progress trend
Progress photographs	Available	Photo Folder LC3-W1-W8	Level 2	VER	Visual support
Concrete quantity records	Available	CQR-01 to CQR-12	Level 2	VER	Accepted lining quantity
Equipment utilization logs	Partially available	EUL Day 1–39	Level 2	PEN	Mixer and backhoe operation
Rainfall records	Available	RR-June-July-2026	Level 2	VER	Weather-event review
Updated catch-up schedule	Not submitted	Pending contractor submission	Level 3	MIS	Remaining-duration forecast
Formal extension request	Not submitted	None	Level 3	NAP	No entitlement analysis

$Evidence Interpretation$

The approved schedule establishes the baseline logic and duration.
Inspection and accepted-quantity records establish verified physical accomplishment.
The incomplete equipment log supports only a limited preliminary issue statement.
A verbal completion prediction is not an approved revised completion date.
No extension recommendation can be made without the required entitlement and critical-path review.

Example 2 — Centralized Workbook Controls and Formula Checks

Workbook control	Example result
Activity ID uniqueness	PASS — A through K are unique
Weight total	PASS — 100.00 percent
Invalid predecessor reference	PASS — every predecessor exists
Baseline overwrite protection	PASS — baseline columns are locked
Approved-revision reference	PASS — no revised date entered without approval
Data-status dropdown	PASS — only VER, PEN, MIS, INC, UNS, or NAP accepted
Formula-cell protection	PASS — CPM, PERT, and S-Curve formulas are protected

Example Spreadsheet Formulas

Purpose	Example formula	Simulated result
Weight total	`=SUM(weight_range)`	1.0000 or 100.00 percent
Weight quality flag	`=IF(ABS(SUM(weight_range)-1)<0.0001,"PASS","REVIEW")`	PASS
Segment 2 earned contribution	`=0.20*0.55`	0.11 or 11.00 percent
PERT expected duration for excavation	`=(8+4*10+15)/6`	10.50 days
PERT variance for excavation	`=((15-8)/6)^2`	1.3611
Progress variance at cutoff	`=0.76-0.90`	-0.14
Standard-normal probability	`=NORM.S.DIST(-0.8616,TRUE)`	Approximately 19.45 percent

$Formula Control$

Participants may inspect source cells and formulas, but they must not overwrite protected formula cells. A copied value must be checked against the controlled calculation before acceptance.

Example 3 — Validated Activity, Logic, Quantity, and Weight Table

ID	Activity	Relationship and predecessor	Duration	Quantity or scope	Weight	Source	Status
A	Mobilization	Start	3 days	One lot	4%	CPM and POW	VER
B	Survey and setting out	FS after A	4 days	Full alignment	3%	CPM and POW	VER
C	Clearing and grubbing	FS after B	5 days	Canal work limits	6%	CPM and BOQ	VER
D	Canal excavation	FS after C	10 days	2,500 cubic metres	18%	CPM and BOQ	VER
E	Subgrade preparation	FS after D	5 days	1,000 metres	8%	CPM and BOQ	VER
F	Concrete lining — Segment 1	FS after E	8 days	500 metres	20%	CPM and BOQ	VER
G	Concrete lining — Segment 2	FS after E	8 days	500 metres	20%	CPM and BOQ	VER
H	Curing and quality testing	FS after F and G	7 days	Completed lining	7%	CPM and method	VER
I	Procurement and delivery of gates	FS after A	20 days	Four gates	6%	CPM and BOQ	VER
J	Gate installation	FS after H and I	5 days	Four gates	5%	CPM and method	VER
K	Final inspection and turnover	FS after J	3 days	One lot	3%	CPM and contract	VER
	Total				100%

Logic-Validation Observations

Validation question	Result	Required action
Are all Activity IDs unique?	Yes	None
Do all predecessor IDs exist?	Yes	None
Do weights total 100 percent?	Yes	None
Are curing, testing, inspection, and turnover represented?	Yes	Retain
Is procurement represented as a parallel path?	Yes	Retain separate path
Does gate installation require civil readiness and delivered gates?	Yes	Retain H and I as predecessors
Is segment-specific curing represented?	No	Record as a recovery review, not approved logic

Example 4 — Correct Classification of Project Information

Statement	Correct data class	Reason
Original completion is 7 August 2026	Baseline	Supported by approved records
Contractor expects completion nine days later	Forecast or proposed	Not an approved revision
Segment 2 is 55 percent complete at Day 40	Actual	Supported by accepted quantity
Add a second crew beginning tomorrow	Proposed corrective action	Requires implementation and review
Four rainfall-affected days occurred	Actual event	Supported by rainfall and inspection records
Contractor is entitled to four additional days	Contractual conclusion not established	Requires entitlement and critical-path analysis

Example 5 — Verified Actual Accomplishment and Earned Contribution

$Calculating Segment 2 Contribution$

Concrete Lining Segment 2 has an approved project weight of 20 percent and verified completion of 55 percent.

\text{Earned contribution}=20\%\times0.55=11\%

Segment 2 contributes 11 percentage points to total project accomplishment at the cutoff.

Completed Accomplishment Table

Activity	Weight	Verified completion	Earned contribution	Primary evidence
Mobilization	4%	100%	4.00%	Mobilization record
Survey and setting out	3%	100%	3.00%	Survey acceptance
Clearing and grubbing	6%	100%	6.00%	Quantity and inspection record
Canal excavation	18%	100%	18.00%	Accepted excavation quantity
Subgrade preparation	8%	100%	8.00%	Inspection record
Concrete lining — Segment 1	20%	100%	20.00%	Concrete quantity and tests
Concrete lining — Segment 2	20%	55%	11.00%	Accepted 275 of 500 metres
Curing and quality testing	7%	0%	0.00%	Not started under baseline logic
Gate procurement and delivery	6%	100%	6.00%	Delivery acceptance
Gate installation	5%	0%	0.00%	Not started
Final inspection and turnover	3%	0%	0.00%	Not started
Total	100%		76.00%

Module 6 simulated graph

Activity Weight and Earned Contribution

Compare each approved activity weight with the value earned at Working Day 40.

Fictional training data

Simulation only. Read the graph together with the controlled tables, assumptions, source records, and quality-gate findings.

$Activity-Weight Graph Interpretation$

The gray bar represents each activity's approved weight.
The colored overlay represents earned contribution at the reporting cutoff.
Segment 2 has earned 11 of its 20 percentage points, leaving a 9-point gap.
Curing and testing, gate installation, and final inspection have no earned contribution because they have not started.
The graph locates missing earned value; the constraint register is still required to explain the causes.

Example 6 — Constraint, Missing-Data, and Change Logs

Constraint Register

Event ID	Activity	Simulated event	Observed effect	Evidence	Preliminary responsibility status
C-01	G	Continuous rainfall prevented concrete placement	Four lost working days	Rainfall and inspection reports	Pending contract review
C-02	G	Concrete mixer breakdown	Two days of reduced production	Equipment log	Contractor-controlled
C-03	G	Insufficient second-segment crew	Continuing productivity loss	Manpower report	Contractor-controlled
C-04	G	No serviceable backup mixer	Recovery risk	Equipment inventory	Contractor-controlled
C-05	H	Combined curing successor for both lining segments	Prevents start until F and G finish	Approved CPM	Schedule-logic review required

Missing-Data Register

Data issue	Status	Effect on analysis	Follow-up owner	Due date
Equipment log for Working Day 40	MIS	Complete downtime cannot be confirmed	Contractor representative	Next working day
Resource-loaded catch-up schedule	MIS	Reliable completion forecast unavailable	Contractor	Within three days
Formal extension request	NAP	No entitlement review can be made	Contract administrator	No action until submission
Approval for segment-specific curing	PEN	Recovery option cannot be assumed	Project Engineer	Within two days

Change Log

Timestamp	Field changed	Old value	New value	Source and reason	Editor
Day 1, 11:10	Segment 2 completion	60 percent	55 percent	Corrected to accepted 275/500 m	Quantity Lead
Day 1, 11:22	Gate procurement status	90 percent	100 percent	Delivery acceptance located	Documentation Lead
Day 1, 11:35	Extension request status	Pending	Not submitted	Confirmed by Contract Administrator	Project Data Lead

$Activity 1 Quality-Gate Result$

The project identity, cutoff, source inventory, activity logic, weights, actual accomplishment, and constraint records are sufficiently complete for the training computation. Missing information remains a limitation and is not replaced with an assumption.

Activity 2A — CPM and PERT Schedule Analysis

Example 7 — Schedule Logic Audit Before Calculation

Intentionally Flawed Draft Relationships

Activity	Flawed predecessor	Problem
H — Curing and testing	F only	Omits Segment 2 lining
J — Gate installation	I only	Ignores civil readiness and curing
K — Final inspection	K	Circular self-reference
I — Gate procurement	Blank	Disconnected activity

Corrected Relationships

Activity	Corrected predecessor	Validation basis
H — Curing and testing	F and G	Both segments complete under baseline logic
J — Gate installation	H and I	Civil readiness and gate delivery required
K — Final inspection	J	Inspection follows completed installation
I — Gate procurement	A	Procurement begins after mobilization

$Logic-Audit Lesson$

A spreadsheet can calculate a mathematically valid schedule from physically invalid logic. Constructability, approval requirements, testing, procurement, and turnover logic must be checked before CPM results are accepted.

Example 8 — Forward Pass

$Forward Pass Through Parallel Lining Branches$

Using the approved day-zero, finish-to-start network, compute the two parallel lining branches and their common successor before finding project completion.

Step-by-Step Solution

0 of 4 Steps Completed

Example 9 — Complete CPM Table

ID	Duration	ES	EF	LS	LF	Total Float	Free Float	Status
A	3	0	3	0	3	0	0	Critical
B	4	3	7	3	7	0	0	Critical
C	5	7	12	7	12	0	0	Critical
D	10	12	22	12	22	0	0	Critical
E	5	22	27	22	27	0	0	Critical
F	8	27	35	27	35	0	0	Critical
G	8	27	35	27	35	0	0	Critical
H	7	35	42	35	42	0	0	Critical
I	20	3	23	22	42	19	19	Non-critical
J	5	42	47	42	47	0	0	Critical
K	3	47	50	47	50	0	0	Critical

Parallel Critical Paths

A-B-C-D-E-F-H-J-K

A-B-C-D-E-G-H-J-K

Module 6 simulated graph

CPM Network and Current Controlling Activity

Inspect the two parallel critical branches and the non-critical gate-procurement path.

Fictional training data

Selected

G — Concrete lining — Segment 2

Baseline paths

Two critical branches

Current control

G — Segment 2 lining

Simulation only. Read the graph together with the controlled tables, assumptions, source records, and quality-gate findings.

$CPM Network Interpretation$

Both lining branches have zero Total Float in the baseline.
Gate procurement is non-critical and has 19 days of Total Float and Free Float.
Segment 1 is complete, while Segment 2 is only 55 percent complete.
Segment 2 is the current controlling activity because H requires both F and G.
Current control is determined from CPM logic plus actual status, not from the S-Curve alone.

Example 10 — PERT Three-Point Estimates

ID	Activity	Optimistic (a)	Most likely (m)	Pessimistic (b)	Expected duration	Variance	Main uncertainty
A	Mobilization	2	3	4	3.00	0.1111	Access readiness
B	Survey	3	4	5	4.00	0.1111	Control verification
C	Clearing	4	5	8	5.33	0.4444	Site obstructions
D	Excavation	8	10	15	10.50	1.3611	Rainfall and subsurface conditions
E	Subgrade	4	5	7	5.17	0.2500	Moisture and inspection
F	Lining Segment 1	6	8	12	8.33	1.0000	Concrete production and weather
G	Lining Segment 2	6	8	11	8.17	0.6944	Crew and equipment availability
H	Curing and testing	5	7	10	7.17	0.6944	Test and acceptance timing
J	Gate installation	4	5	8	5.33	0.4444	Fit-up and lifting
K	Inspection and turnover	2	3	4	3.00	0.1111	Punch-list closure

Excavation PERT Calculation

t_e=\frac{8+4(10)+15}{6}=10.50\text{ days}

\sigma^2=\left(\frac{15-8}{6}\right)^2=1.3611

Example 11 — Deterministic-versus-PERT Path Comparison

Path	Activities	Expected duration	Path variance	Standard deviation
F branch	A-B-C-D-E-F-H-J-K	51.83 days	4.5278	2.13 days
G branch	A-B-C-D-E-G-H-J-K	51.67 days	4.2222	2.05 days

$Path Interpretation$

The deterministic branches are equal at 50 days. After expected durations are applied, the F branch is slightly longer. The difference is small, so both branches remain risk-significant.

Target-Date Probabilities

Z_{50}=\frac{50-51.83}{2.13}=-0.8616

P(T\leq50)\approx19.45\%

Z_{55}=\frac{55-51.83}{2.13}=1.4882

P(T\leq55)\approx93.17\%

Module 6 simulated graph

PERT Completion-Probability Curve

Move the target duration to see the approximate probability of completion under the stated assumptions.

Fictional training data

Target completion duration: 50 working days

Completion probability

19.5%

Z-score

-0.86

Model parameters

μ = 51.83 d · σ = 2.13 d

Simulation only. Read the graph together with the controlled tables, assumptions, source records, and quality-gate findings.

$PERT Probability-Graph Interpretation$

The amber line represents the expected project duration.
The movable target line represents the duration being evaluated.
The shaded area represents approximate completion probability at or before the target.
Moving the target from 50 to 55 days increases the displayed probability substantially.
The result is a risk estimate, not proof of entitlement or a guaranteed finish date.

Example 12 — Schedule-Risk Register

Risk	Affected activity or path	Signal	Potential consequence	Response	Update trigger
Heavy rainfall	D, F, and G	Wide duration range	Slower earthwork and concrete output	Weather monitoring and protected work	Forecast change or lost workday
Mixer failure	F and G	Documented breakdown	Critical lining delay	Backup mixer and checks	Equipment fault or low output
Insufficient crew	G	Current actual condition	Remaining quantity delayed	Additional qualified crew	Daily output below target
Testing delay	H	Pessimistic duration of 10 days	Downstream delay	Prebook testing and inspection resources	Test slot or result delay
Parallel-path switch	F and G	Expected durations are close	Either branch may control	Monitor both remaining durations	One branch exceeds the other

$Activity 2A Quality-Gate Result$

The network is connected, forward and backward passes are consistent, both float types are shown, parallel critical paths are identified, and PERT estimates have stated sources and limitations.

Activity 2B — S-Curve and Project-Status Analysis

Example 13 — Plot-Ready Early, Late, and Actual Dataset

Reporting week	Early-start cumulative	Late-start cumulative	Actual cumulative	Actual minus early	Actual minus late
Week 1	6.10%	4.00%	5.00%	-1.10 points	+1.00 point
Week 2	12.70%	9.00%	11.50%	-1.20 points	+2.50 points
Week 3	22.00%	15.00%	19.00%	-3.00 points	+4.00 points
Week 4	32.50%	25.00%	29.00%	-3.50 points	+4.00 points
Week 5	41.80%	38.00%	38.00%	-3.80 points	0.00 points
Week 6	60.00%	55.00%	52.00%	-8.00 points	-3.00 points
Week 7	85.00%	78.00%	68.00%	-17.00 points	-10.00 points
Week 8	90.00%	89.40%	76.00%	-14.00 points	-13.40 points

Module 6 simulated graph

Early, Late, and Actual S-Curve Envelope

Inspect the planned envelope, reporting-period variance, and first boundary breach.

Fictional training data

Inspect reporting week: 8

Late-start curve Actual curve

Early plan

90.0%

Late plan

89.4%

Actual

76.0%

Variance

-14.0 / -13.4 pts

Simulation only. Read the graph together with the controlled tables, assumptions, source records, and quality-gate findings.

$S-Curve Interpretation$

Actual progress remains within or on the early-late envelope through Week 5.
Week 6 is the first period where actual progress falls below the late-start boundary.
At Week 8, the project is 14.00 percentage points behind the early-start plan and 13.40 points below the late-start boundary.
Variance improves from -17 points in Week 7 to -14 points in Week 8, but the project remains materially behind.
The graph identifies variance magnitude and trend; CPM identifies the controlling activity.

Current Progress Indicators

\text{Progress Variance}=76\%-90\%=-14\text{ percentage points}

SPI=\frac{76}{90}=0.8444

$SPI Limitation$

The simplified SPI is a progress-screening indicator. It does not replace an updated CPM remaining-duration forecast.

Example 14 — Activity-Level Explanation of the 14-Point Variance

Source of missing earned contribution	Calculation	Missing contribution
Unfinished 45 percent of Segment 2 lining	20 percent weight × 45 percent incomplete	9 points
Curing and testing not started	Five points planned by cutoff	5 points
Total explained variance		14 points

$Cause-and-Magnitude Discipline$

The table identifies where earned contribution is missing. The constraint register identifies documented conditions affecting the activities. Neither table independently establishes contractual responsibility.

Example 15 — Optional Earned Value Extension

Indicator	Value
Budget at Completion	PHP 10,000,000
Planned Value	PHP 9,000,000
Earned Value	PHP 7,600,000
Actual Cost	PHP 8,200,000

Earned Value Indicators

SV=EV-PV=-1{,}400{,}000

CV=EV-AC=-600{,}000

SPI=\frac{EV}{PV}=0.8444

CPI=\frac{EV}{AC}=0.9268

Module 6 simulated graph

Earned Value Status at Working Day 40

Compare Planned Value, Earned Value, and Actual Cost at one consistent reporting cutoff.

Fictional training data

Schedule variance

-PHP 1.4M

Cost variance

-PHP 0.6M

SPI

0.844

CPI

0.927

Simulation only. Read the graph together with the controlled tables, assumptions, source records, and quality-gate findings.

$Earned Value Graph Interpretation$

Planned Value is highest because 90 percent of budgeted value should have been earned.
Earned Value is lower because only 76 percent of budgeted work has been accepted.
Actual Cost exceeds Earned Value, producing negative Cost Variance and CPI below 1.00.
The graph adds cost-efficiency context; CPM and the evidence register are still required to explain the cause.

$Activity 2B Quality-Gate Result$

The group has a complete plot-ready dataset, identifies the first envelope breach, reports variance precisely, connects the condition to CPM logic, and uses one reporting cutoff for the optional cost analysis.

Activity 3 — Integrated Project Output Development

Example 16 — Evidence-Linked Root-Cause Analysis

Cause or condition	Evidence	Affected activity	Responsibility status	Assessed effect	Confidence
Continuous rainfall	Rainfall and inspection records	G — Segment 2 lining	Potentially excusable, subject to contract review	Four lost working days	Event high; entitlement unresolved
Concrete mixer breakdown	Equipment log	G — Segment 2 lining	Contractor-controlled	Two days reduced output	High
Insufficient crew	Manpower records	G — Segment 2 lining	Contractor-controlled	Production below target	High
No backup mixer	Equipment inventory	G — Segment 2 lining	Contractor-controlled	Recovery delayed	High
Combined curing logic	Approved baseline schedule	H — Curing and testing	Schedule-planning condition	H waits for both segments	High

$Root-Cause Conclusion$

The records do not support attributing the entire variance to rainfall. Weather, equipment, manpower, and schedule-logic conditions are all present. Responsibility and entitlement remain separate questions requiring formal review.

Example 17 — Corrective-Action Matrix

Issue	Required action	Responsible party	Deadline	Expected effect	Monitoring indicator	Escalation trigger
Segment 2 is 55 percent complete	Deploy an additional qualified lining crew	Contractor	Within 1 day	Increase output	Daily completed metres	Output below recovery target for two days
Mixer reliability	Mobilize and test a backup mixer	Contractor	Within 1 day	Reduce downtime risk	Daily availability	Primary and backup unavailable
No accepted forecast	Submit resource-loaded catch-up CPM	Contractor	Within 3 days	Establish forecast	Schedule review status	No acceptable submission
Weekly-only monitoring	Introduce daily critical-activity report	Site Engineer	Immediately	Detect shortfall early	Daily quantity and resources	Missing report or adverse trend
Rainfall effect unresolved	Complete records and contract review	Project Engineer and Contract Administrator	Within 5 days	Separate delay effects	Written assessment	Required record remains missing
Combined curing logic	Review segment-specific curing and testing	Technical reviewer	Within 2 days	Determine valid overlap	Approved or rejected method	No decision before readiness

Example 18 — Decision Register

Decision required	Decision owner	Information required	Due date	Risk of no decision	Status
Accept or reject catch-up schedule	Project Engineer	Logic, resources, calendars, remaining durations	One day after submission	Unreliable forecast	Open
Permit segment-specific curing	Technical reviewer	Method, quality plan, contract consistency	Within two days	Lost recovery opportunity or unsafe overlap	Pending information
Determine weather-delay treatment	Contract Administrator	Rainfall, reports, path effect, clauses	After complete review	Premature entitlement decision	Open
Escalate resource deficiency	Project Manager	Daily output and equipment trend	On trigger breach	Continued critical delay	Monitoring

Example 19 — Recovery-Scenario Screening

$Screening Assumptions$

Segment 2 total length is 500 metres.
Verified completion is 275 metres.
Remaining quantity is 225 metres.
One-crew effective output is 25 metres per working day.
Two-crew combined output is 45 metres per working day after coordination loss.
Activities H, J, and K remain sequential under the baseline logic.

Remaining Lining Duration

\text{One crew}=\frac{225}{25}=9\text{ working days}

\text{Two crews}=\frac{225}{45}=5\text{ working days}

Module 6 simulated graph

Recovery-Scenario Screening Timeline

Compare the remaining-duration effect of one crew and two crews without treating either scenario as approved.

Fictional training data

The screen compares remaining work only. It does not account for approval, congestion, safety, quality, or additional cost.

One-crew finish

Day 64

Two-crew screening

Day 60

Potential reduction

4 working days

Simulation only. Read the graph together with the controlled tables, assumptions, source records, and quality-gate findings.

$Recovery Graph Interpretation$

The one-crew screen reaches completion at approximately Day 64.
The two-crew screen reaches completion at approximately Day 60.
The apparent four-day reduction comes only from the changed lining-productivity assumption.
Curing, testing, installation, and final inspection remain downstream and sequential.
The graph is not an approved catch-up schedule; safety, quality, congestion, cost, resource availability, and contractual review remain necessary.

Example 20 — Management-Ready Executive Summary

$Integrated Executive Summary$

As of Working Day 40, the Rehabilitation and Concrete Lining of Lateral Canal LC-3 had achieved 76.00 percent verified physical accomplishment against 90.00 percent planned accomplishment, resulting in a negative variance of 14.00 percentage points. The actual S-Curve first fell below the late-start boundary in Week 6 and is currently 13.40 percentage points below that boundary. The CPM network contains two parallel baseline critical paths through Concrete Lining Segments 1 and 2. Segment 1 is complete, while Segment 2 is only 55 percent complete and presently controls the start of curing, testing, gate installation, final inspection, and turnover. Documented contributing conditions include rainfall-affected working days, concrete-mixer breakdown, insufficient crew deployment, and the absence of a backup mixer. The simplified PERT analysis indicates low confidence in the 50-day target under the stated uncertainty assumptions. Management should require an updated resource-loaded catch-up schedule, immediate crew and equipment response, daily critical-activity monitoring, and timely technical review of segment-specific curing. Any extension decision should remain reserved until weather effects, responsibility, entitlement, and critical-path impact are formally evaluated.

$Analysis Limitations$

No accepted updated CPM schedule is available.
Equipment records are incomplete for Working Day 40.
PERT uses a simplified critical-path variance approximation.
Correlation and repeated critical-path switching are not fully modeled.
The recovery screen excludes detailed safety, quality, congestion, learning, and cost effects.
Segment-specific curing has not been approved.
No formal extension request or entitlement analysis exists.

Example 21 — Peer-Review Log

Peer-review finding	Classification	Correction	Status
Draft said “14 percent delayed”	Precision	Changed to “14 percentage points behind”	Closed
Gate procurement listed as a cause	CPM inconsistency	Removed; complete with 19 days float	Closed
Recovery action lacked trigger	Action quality	Added daily-output and deadline triggers	Closed
PERT probability lacked limitation	Risk communication	Added model assumptions	Closed
Extension recommendation was premature	Contract governance	Changed to reserved decision	Closed

$Activity 3 Quality-Gate Result$

Technical values are consistent with the controlled workbook, causes are evidence-linked, actions and decisions are separated, graphs use the same reporting cutoff, limitations are disclosed, and peer-review findings are resolved.

Activity 4 — AI-Assisted Review, Drafting, and Validation

Example 22 — Structured AI Prompt

$AI-Assisted Project-Status Drafting Prompt$

Role: Act as a construction project-controls drafting assistant.
Verified source data: Use only the supplied project profile, controlled CPM table, PERT summary, S-Curve table, accepted accomplishment table, root-cause table, and sanitized constraint register.
Task: Draft a concise management-level project-status narrative and corrective-action table.
Output format: Return an executive summary, findings table, follow-up actions, and missing-information list.
Restrictions: Do not recalculate the schedule, invent dates or quantities, add causes, determine accomplishment, assign entitlement, approve an extension, or state a completion date as certain.
Validation instruction: Flag every missing, inconsistent, uncertain, or unsupported item separately and identify the supplied source category used for each statement.

Example 23 — Simulated Raw AI Response with Deliberate Errors

$Unverified AI Draft$

The following response intentionally contains plausible but unsupported statements so participants can practice validation.

$Raw AI Response — Do Not Accept Without Review$

The project is 14 percent delayed because rainfall and late gate delivery prevented the contractor from maintaining the schedule. Segment 2 lining is critical, and the project will finish exactly nine days late. Management should grant a ten-day extension and direct the contractor to add a second lining crew. Gate procurement should be expedited because it has no float. The project remains fully recoverable if all recommendations are implemented immediately.

Example 24 — Claim-Level AI Validation Log

AI statement	Statement type	Verification source	Result	Corrected wording or action
Project is 14 percent delayed	Interpretation	S-Curve table	Revise	14 percentage points behind planned accomplishment
Rainfall caused the delay	Cause	Constraint register	Revise	Rainfall contributed; equipment and manpower are also documented
Late gate delivery caused delay	Cause	CPM and delivery records	Incorrect	Reject; gates delivered and Activity I has 19 days float
Segment 2 lining is critical	Fact	CPM table	Accepted	Retain
Project will finish exactly nine days late	Forecast	No accepted catch-up schedule	Unsupported	Updated CPM forecast required
Grant a ten-day extension	Entitlement recommendation	No entitlement analysis	Rejected	Reserve decision pending formal review
Add a second lining crew	Recommendation	Recovery screen	Accept with revision	Subject to safety, quality, resource, and schedule review
Gate procurement has no float	Calculation	CPM table	Incorrect	Replace with 19 days Total and Free Float
Project is fully recoverable	Forecast	No accepted recovery plan	More information required	Recovery must be demonstrated and monitored

Example 25 — Challenge Prompt

$Adversarial Review Prompt$

Review the draft against the verified facts. List any statement that asserts an unsupported cause, arithmetic result, completion forecast, entitlement, approval, or certainty. Do not repair the draft yet. Return the statement, problem type, and evidence needed.

Simulated Challenge Findings

Flagged statement	Problem type	Evidence needed
Late gate delivery	Contradicted cause	Delivery record and procurement float
Exactly nine days late	Unsupported forecast	Updated remaining-duration CPM
Grant ten-day extension	Unsupported entitlement	Contract, responsibility, and delay analysis
No float	Incorrect calculation	Controlled CPM table
Fully recoverable	Overconfidence	Accepted recovery plan and production trend

$Challenge Review Limitation$

A second AI pass may identify errors, but it does not replace human verification. The system may fail to challenge an earlier claim or introduce a different unsupported statement.

Example 26 — Corrected AI-Assisted Narrative

$Validated Final Narrative$

As of Working Day 40, verified physical accomplishment is 76.00 percent against 90.00 percent planned accomplishment, placing the project 14.00 percentage points behind the early-start baseline. The actual curve is also 13.40 percentage points below the late-start boundary. Concrete Lining Segment 2 is on a critical branch and currently controls the start of curing and testing. Documented contributing conditions include rainfall-affected working days, concrete-mixer breakdown, insufficient crew deployment, and the absence of a serviceable backup mixer. Gate procurement is complete and is not a current controlling cause because the activity has 19 days of Total Float and Free Float. The final completion effect and recovery potential cannot be stated with certainty until an updated resource-loaded CPM schedule is submitted and reviewed. Management should require immediate recovery planning, additional qualified resources, daily monitoring, and formal review of weather effects while reserving any extension decision pending contract and critical-path analysis.

$Human Engineering-Judgment Statement$

The final report was reviewed against the controlled project workbook and supporting records. AI was used only to assist with organization and drafting. All accepted statements, interpretations, and recommendations were independently checked by the designated technical reviewers, who retain responsibility for the final engineering judgment.

$Activity 4 Quality-Gate Result$

The prompt, supplied data, original response, challenge response, claim-level validation, corrections, and human reviewer are preserved. Unsupported AI conclusions are excluded from the report.

Final Presentation Example

Ten-Segment Presentation Outline

Segment	Required content	Simulated key message
1. Project profile	Identity, duration, cutoff, planned and actual progress	Day 40; 90 planned versus 76 actual
2. Data quality	Records, missing data, limitations	Catch-up schedule and Day 40 equipment log missing
3. CPM graph	Network, float, parallel paths, controlling activity	Two critical branches; G currently controls
4. PERT graph	Expected duration and target confidence	50-day confidence approximately 19.45 percent
5. S-Curve graph	Envelope, breach, variance, trend	First late-boundary breach in Week 6
6. Earned Value graph	PV, EV, AC, SPI, CPI	Behind schedule and cost efficiency below 1.00
7. Root causes	Evidence and affected activity	Weather plus equipment and manpower conditions
8. Recovery graph	Assumptions, screening result, limitations	Possible four-day reduction, not approved
9. AI validation	Major AI errors and corrections	Gate-delay and extension claims rejected
10. Final judgment	Required management position	Recover immediately; reserve entitlement decision

$Final Engineering Conclusion$

The fictional project is materially behind its approved progress baseline. The current variance is linked to incomplete Concrete Lining Segment 2, which lies on a critical branch and prevents downstream curing, testing, installation, inspection, and turnover from proceeding under the baseline logic. Immediate recovery action is required, but the available data do not support a certain completion forecast or extension entitlement. The appropriate management position is to require an updated resource-loaded catch-up schedule, enforce daily monitoring of critical work, validate weather and equipment records, review technically valid overlap opportunities, and reserve contractual decisions until responsibility and critical-path effect are established.

Facilitator Answer Key

Required question	Expected answer
Reporting cutoff	End of Working Day 40
Weight total	100 percent
Verified actual progress	76.00 percent
Early-start progress variance	Negative 14.00 percentage points
First late-start boundary breach	Week 6
Deterministic critical paths	F and G parallel branches
Current controlling activity	G — Concrete Lining Segment 2
Gate procurement float	19 days Total and Free Float
Slightly longer PERT path	F branch at 51.83 days
Approximate 50-day probability	19.45 percent under stated assumptions
Sole cause rainfall?	No
Extension recommendation now?	No; formal analysis incomplete
Immediate justified actions	Catch-up schedule, crew, backup mixer, daily monitoring, technical review

$Complete Example Submission Checklist$

Project Registry with data classes and sources.
Source inventory with evidence levels and status codes.
Workbook controls and deterministic formulas.
Activity, relationship, duration, quantity, and weight table.
Actual accomplishment and earned-contribution table and graph.
Constraint, missing-data, and Change Logs.
Logic audit and corrected CPM network graph.
Forward pass, backward pass, Total Float, and Free Float.
Deterministic and PERT path comparison and probability graph.
Schedule-risk register.
Plot-ready early-start, late-start, and actual S-Curve dataset and graph.
Optional Earned Value calculations and graph.
Root-cause table, corrective-action matrix, and decision register.
Recovery-screening calculation and timeline graph.
Executive summary, recommendations, limitations, and peer-review log.
Structured AI prompt, raw response, challenge response, and validation log.
Corrected AI-assisted narrative and human engineering-judgment statement.
Final presentation outline and facilitator answer key.

Key Takeaways

Every graph is produced from a controlled table and one reporting cutoff.
The activity-weight graph locates missing earned contribution.
The CPM network identifies critical paths, float, and the current controlling activity.
The PERT curve communicates target-date confidence under explicit assumptions.
The S-Curve shows variance magnitude, trend, and envelope position.
Earned Value adds cost-efficiency context only when PV, EV, and AC are verified.
The recovery timeline communicates a screening result, not an approved schedule.
AI-generated conclusions remain unverified until checked statement by statement.
Final engineering judgment must remain traceable to evidence and reproducible calculations.

Previous TopicModule 6: Guided Workshop Activities and Integrated Project Output