Recovery reviews: demand a credible route to completion
Test the assumptions behind a recovery proposal before accepting a cleaner score or earlier date.
A recovery review asks whether a proposed execution plan can be delivered. A quality score helps identify questions, but cannot prove crew availability, access, productivity, approval or achieved time recovery.
Fix the reference and status
Keep the accepted update, reporting date, contractual completion milestone and any approved extensions identifiable. Resolve material status contradictions first. A recovery proposal built on future actuals or unreported remaining scope does not give a dependable starting position.
Challenge every time-saving edit
Compare remaining durations, relationships, calendars, constraints and additions or deletions. For each proposed reduction, request the execution reason: added resources, changed method, released access or an approved scope decision. Record who controls the assumption and when it must be confirmed.
Review resources and interfaces together
Check whether parallel activities compete for the same crew, equipment, permits or workface. Review procurement and acceptance interfaces as well as construction work. Identify the trigger dates and contingency actions if the planned release or productivity does not materialize.
Recalculate, review and monitor
Run the proposed programme in P6 with documented scheduling settings. Review the driving path, near-critical paths and milestone movement. Agree leading indicators and a short reporting cycle. Keep the proposed recovery, approved revision and achieved progress separate in the narrative.
The sample clears flags; the reviewer still has decisions
| Sample evidence | What it proves | What remains to verify |
|---|---|---|
| A130 duration shortened | The supplied duration changed | Feasible method, crew, productivity and retained scope |
| Negative-float findings removed | Exported float values no longer trigger PP-201 | Controlled CPM result and accepted completion obligation |
| Score improves to 100 | No configured rule exceptions in that fixture | Achievability, approvals and actual recovery |
The demonstration deliberately does not claim recovered days. Its float values were edited for teaching; it is not a P6-recalculated recovery case study.
Take this checklist into the review
- Reference update and completion obligation identified
- Every duration and logic change has supporting evidence
- Resources, access and interfaces checked
- Controlled P6 recalculation reviewed
- Owners, trigger dates and fallback actions agreed
Work through the recovery-review demonstration
Inspect the known edits, their score effect and the decisions the software cannot make.
Open the free demonstration →Further reading
These guides describe PlanProof’s current implementation and a suggested review workflow. External references provide broader scheduling context; they do not endorse or certify this tool.
References checked 6 October 2026. PlanProof methodology · Scoring model