Interactive Contract Management Demonstration

Claims Analysis

Test a contract claim across entitlement, procedure, causation, time impact, quantum, mitigation and concurrency, and observe how evidence gaps change the strength of the management position.

Demonstration Overview

Analyze the case behind the claim—not just the amount being requested.

The worked example is a contractor claim arising from late owner-provided site access. The claim seeks 18 days of time relief and £480,000. The simulator evaluates the strength of the supporting contractual and evidential case.

Claim Event Late owner-provided site access
Claimed Time 18 days
Claimed Amount £480,000
Learning Principle Manipulate → Observe → Explain → Challenge → Recommend
Guided Demonstration

Claims Analysis — Step by Step

Eight locked stages move from claim context through entitlement, causation, time impact, quantum, mitigation/concurrency, an evidence challenge and management review.

Current Stage 1 of 8
Claim Support Index Not assessed
Progress Establish context
Learning stages
Foundation Stage 1 of 8

Establish the Contract Claim Context

Current Instruction
Interactive Claims Analysis Dashboard

Entitlement, Causation, Time and Quantum

Reveal the claim context to begin.

100%
Claim status: Establish the claim context.
Interpretation

Separate entitlement, proof and valuation.

Entitlement & procedure

Identify the operative contract clause or legal basis and verify any notice, timing, record and submission requirements that affect the claim.

Causation & delay

Show that the alleged event caused the claimed consequence. For delay claims, connect the event to the contractual completion path using appropriate schedule evidence.

Quantum

Trace claimed cost to recoverable categories and reliable records. Separate actual cost, estimated cost, duplicated cost, unsupported allocation and unrelated expenditure.

Mitigation & defenses

Review mitigation, concurrent delay, claimant-responsibility events, caps, exclusions, releases, waivers and other contractual or legal defenses that may affect the outcome.

Claim Support Index= Entitlement 20% + Notice 10% + Causation 20% + Time Substantiation 15% + Quantum Substantiation 20% + Mitigation 5% + Concurrency/Defense Position 10%.

Causation Score= average of Responsibility Attribution and Causation Evidence.

Concurrency / Defense Score= inverse of modeled concurrent-delay exposure.

Illustrative Evidence-Weighted Amount= Claimed Amount × Claim Support Index. It is shown only to demonstrate sensitivity and is not a legal valuation, settlement recommendation or amount due.

Important: actual claims depend on the contract, governing law, facts, notice provisions, causation, delay methodology, valuation rules and dispute-resolution framework.

Experiment Mode

Build Your Own Claims Analysis Scenario

Experiment Mode is isolated from the guided demonstration. Change the claim amount, time, entitlement, evidence and defense assumptions freely.

Check Your Understanding

Quick Knowledge Check

Choose an answer, then check it.
Quick Reference

Claims Analysis Cues

Start with the Contract

Identify the clause, obligation, event, remedy and procedure before analyzing the claimed amount.

Test Notice Compliance

Check notice timing, content, records and claim-submission requirements under the actual contract.

Prove Causation

Connect the event to the claimed time and cost consequences using contemporaneous evidence.

Substantiate Time

Use appropriate schedule analysis and records to demonstrate the impact on contractual completion.

Substantiate Quantum

Trace recoverable cost to reliable source documents and remove unsupported, duplicated or unrelated amounts.

Test Defenses

Review mitigation, concurrency, claimant responsibility, caps, exclusions, releases and other contractual/legal defenses.

Key Takeaway
A claim is only as strong as the contractual and evidential chain connecting entitlement to the claimed time and money.

Test procedure, causation, schedule effect, quantum, mitigation and defenses separately, then build the management position from the evidence rather than from the headline claim value.