In a growing number of disputes, the issue isn’t whether work was disrupted; it’s whether the disruption can be proven in a manner that persuades the decision-maker as to what occurred and what it is worth.
This issue shows up consistently across projects. Jobs are delivered under tighter timelines, designs evolve during construction, teams turn over, and while there’s more data than ever, it is often not structured to support a clear narrative. Impacts such as resequencing and access restrictions are managed in real time but not documented with claim submission in mind. Schedule updates often combine progress, logic revisions, and mitigation, while cost data lacks the granularity to isolate specific drivers. As a result, causation and quantification become difficult to establish after the fact, and the focus shifts from what occurred to what can be supported by the record.
Drawing on the perspectives of contractor in-house counsel, outside counsel, delay and damages experts, and a trier of fact, this panel will explore how documentation gaps develop, how different stakeholders interpret the same records, and what types of evidence ultimately carry weight when disruption and damages are evaluated. The panel will also explore whether AI will help reduce this gap.
