Stop 5 of 9 · Weekly
Time-impact analysis
Build the fragnet from the record, tie it in with evidence for every link, run it in P6, and explain the result to someone who has never seen a network.
What the contract asks for
Before anything else, read what this contract requires. Some specifications name a method and a submission deadline, some name a recommended practice, some say nothing and leave you arguing about method for six months. That reading is a five minute job and it decides everything after it.
From the contract, the general conditions and the specification sections in this Project, tell me exactly what is required for a time impact analysis: the clause and page, the method named if any, which schedule the analysis is run from, the submission deadline and what starts that clock, the supporting documents required, and what the contract says happens if the owner does not respond in time. Quote the operative wording. Where the contract is silent, say so rather than filling the gap with common practice.
The fragnet
A fragnet is the event drawn as activities: the notification, the investigation, the design response, the procurement, the corrective work. Durations come from the record, not from judgment, and every one of them should be traceable to a letter, an RFI, a delivery ticket or a log entry. Then it is tied into the schedule at the points where work actually stopped.
Claude is good at three parts of this and must not touch the fourth.
| Claude does | Karim and P6 do |
|---|---|
| Pull the event chronology out of the correspondence record with a document reference per row | Decide which activities were genuinely affected |
| Draft the fragnet activities and propose tie-in logic with the evidence for each link | Insert, set calendars and run the recalculation in P6 |
| Draft the narrative once the run is done | Produce the impacted date, the day count and the float consumed |
[upload the correspondence, RFIs and daily logs for the north headwall condition] First give me the chronology: one row per document, date, from, to, what it says, and the document reference. Then draft a fragnet from it: activities with names and durations, each duration traced to a row in the chronology. Then propose the tie-in logic to the activities in the attached update export, with the relationship type and the document that shows the work was stopped. Mark any link where the evidence is thin or missing. Leave every completion date and day count blank.
Read my fragnet and the evidence column, then argue against it as the agency's scheduling consultant would. Attack the durations first, then the tie-in points, then anything you would call concurrent from the update export. For each attack, say what document would answer it. Do not tell me who is right.
[paste the before and after completion dates from my P6 runs, and the fragnet] Write the time impact narrative for a resident engineer who has never opened P6. Explain what the event was, which update it was inserted into and why, what the fragnet represents, how it ties in, and what the two schedule runs produced. Use the dates I gave you and no others. Four paragraphs, no jargon that is not defined in the sentence it appears in.