Stop 8 of 9 · Later
Research and precedent
Research mode on agency specifications and published analysis guidance, sources kept and dated, with the line where research stops and counsel starts.
What research is for here
Research mode runs a longer search across the web, follows sources and comes back with a report and the links it used. On a claim engagement that is worth an afternoon a month, and it is worth nothing at all if the output is not traceable back to a document with a date on it.
The reason is simple. Anything Karim writes into a package can be handed to an expert on the other side, who will look up every source. A finding you cannot trace is a finding you have to withdraw, and withdrawing one makes the rest look softer than it is.
Three things Karim uses it for, and one he does not.
| Use it for | What good output looks like |
|---|---|
| An agency's current scheduling specification across recent contracts | A comparison table, with the contract or solicitation each version came from |
| Published guidance on the analysis method a specification names | The document, its issuing body, its edition and date, and a link |
| Standard forms, general conditions and special provisions an agency publishes | The exact wording, with the source document named |
The one he does not: deciding what the law does to his claim. That question goes to counsel, and it goes with the research attached rather than instead of it.
Research the current progress schedule specification used by [name the agency] on its recent construction solicitations. For each version you find: the solicitation or contract it came from, its date, what it requires for the baseline, the update frequency and content, and what it requires for a time impact analysis. Give me a comparison table plus a link and a retrieval date for every row. Where versions differ on the analysis method, quote both. Do not tell me which version applies to my contract, because that depends on documents you have not seen.
Research the recommended practice named in the specification I have uploaded. Tell me the issuing body, the current edition and its date, what the practice actually prescribes for the method, and where practitioners disagree about applying it. Separate what the document says from what commentators say about it, and give me a link and a date for each source. Flag anything you found that is undated or unattributed.
Turn the last two reports into one file I can keep in this engagement's Project: what the question was, what was found, one line per source with the issuing body, the date and the link, and a short note on what each source can and cannot support. Mark clearly anything that is background only.