Delay analysis has evolved significantly, and while the use of sound methodology is still expected, disputes increasingly turn on how clearly, credibly, and persuasively delay evidence is explained.
Even with detailed schedules, drones, 360° walkthroughs, and guidance from the SCL Protocol (2017) and AACE RP 29R‑03, outcomes often hinge on clarity, judgment, and persuasion.
This session explores how expectations for proving delay have shifted and what decision‑makers find compelling today. The panel will examine how experts establish criticality and causation in practice, why analyses can still struggle under scrutiny despite better data, and which approaches tend to resonate most with tribunals. The session includes a practical discussion on AI in delay disputes— cutting through the noise, how it is currently being used, what needs to be explained and disclosed, and how AI‑supported analyses are likely to be viewed by decision‑makers.
As project data becomes richer and AI tools more common, this session is designed to give counsel (outside and inside) and experts a practical playbook for that shift.
This panel intentionally combines counsel (in/out) lens, delay expert lens, and a tribunal perspective on what actually wins (or loses) delay disputes in the real world.