Use cases
By organization
Featured stories
Latest from the blog
AI with full project context: Connect Nodes & Links with AconexNovember 5, 2026All blog posts →Featured guide
GuideThe Executive Guide to AI for Project DeliveryTest date confidence, understand project risk and focus interventions, with auditable evidence.Read the guide →All guides →Watch, read and learn
WebinarsLive sessions and on-demand replays.WhitepapersLong reads on where project delivery is going.ResearchThe peer-reviewed work behind the models.Platform coursesShort videos on getting more from the platform.The Physics of Project AccelerationOur book on pulling project dates forward.All resources →Use cases / Progress verification
Only pay for work the schedule says is really done.
Same ground truth models underneath. Flip between the answer and the Progress Tracking view behind it.
No. Progress is 27.8% behind plan, and earned value says the same: you’re paying ahead of the work.
Same ground truth models underneath. Flip between the answer and the Progress Tracking view behind it.
No. Progress is 27.8% behind plan, and earned value says the same: you’re paying ahead of the work.
Same ground truth models underneath. Flip between the answer and the Progress Tracking view behind it.
No. Progress is 27.8% behind plan, and earned value says the same: you’re paying ahead of the work.
Asked in AI Mode
Know where your project really stands. AI Mode checks reported progress against the schedule data, so every number in your report holds up.
Real customer projects, anonymized
“Compare the schedule’s progress to the contractor’s weekly report. Where do they disagree?”
OThe report claimed 89% of hours earned, but its own tables showed 79.9%. Against the original baseline, the project was about 10 weeks behind.
Why it mattered. The owner had six specific points to raise with the contractor, starting with a recovery plan for the largest subcontractor.
“Compare the schedule’s progress to the contractor’s weekly report. Where do they disagree?”
OThe report claimed 89% of hours earned, but its own tables showed 79.9%. Against the original baseline, the project was about 10 weeks behind.
Why it mattered. The owner had six specific points to raise with the contractor, starting with a recovery plan for the largest subcontractor.
“Build a progress table for each work area under this task order.”
CProgress averaged 66.4% against 74.1% planned. One work area stood out at 27.9% complete against 54.5% planned, while three others were above 80%.
Why it mattered. Catch-up effort could go to one area instead of all 18, tracked in a color-coded Excel file.
“Plot our progress across all past updates against the baseline.”
PThe project was 85.9% complete by duration and gaining about 3.5% a week, tracked across all 15 updates.
Why it mattered. The team got a report-ready S-curve and Excel data it can refresh after every update.
Open any answer in Platform Mode and check the math yourself. How it works
Planned against actual progress for every WBS and activity code, by duration or by activities completed, with S-curves, activities per day and SPI.
Yes. PV, EV and AC, plus SPI, CPI, EAC, VAC and TCPI, all calculated with the standard earned value formulas.
Yes. AI Mode compares reported progress with what the schedule actually supports and shows exactly where the two disagree.
A forecast of remaining work based on how long completed activities actually took against plan, in the same WBS or activity code.