Schedule comparisons: explain the change, not just the score
Use stable activity IDs and a change register to explain movement between updates.
A higher score can coexist with a worse forecast. Compare the inputs that changed before explaining the outcome. Keep scope, status, logic and imposed dates visible as separate review decisions.
Choose a valid pair
Use two revisions of the same project with consistent internal task IDs and a documented export scope. Label the earlier and later updates clearly. Do not assume that a matching activity code proves identity after a copied or re-imported project. The local tool rejects differing project IDs, but matching IDs alone are not sufficient proof.
Read structural changes first
Review additions, deletions, WBS or code changes, calendars, constraints and relationships. Separate approved scope changes from unexplained edits. A new or removed activity can change the meaning of progress and float without being a data error.
Read movement against the same reference
Review remaining durations, actuals, total float and milestone movement. Use a controlled, approved baseline for contractual comparison; the previous update answers a different question. Confirm whether target dates in an export actually represent the baseline you intend to use.
Write an evidence-led narrative
State the activity, changed field, old and new value, source of the change and required decision. Link the narrative to the XER filenames and action owner. If scoring models differ, preserve the historical results and explicitly recalculate both with one model before claiming like-for-like score movement.
What the NT-1.0 comparison actually shows
| Activity | Observed teaching edit | Question to ask |
|---|---|---|
| A130 | Original duration reduced from 480 to 240 hours | What scope, crew or productivity evidence supports the reduction? |
| A120 → A130 | SS + 80-hour lag becomes FS + 0 lag | Does the handoff match the proposed execution method? |
| A160 | Previously isolated; connected before completion | Is the review now tied to the right acceptance milestone? |
These edits clear checks in a synthetic example. They do not establish achieved time savings: the sample has no verified completion forecast.
Take this checklist into the review
- Same project and stable internal IDs verified
- Previous/current files and data dates recorded
- Additions and deletions explained
- Baseline identity and approvals confirmed separately
- Each material change has a reason and owner
Open the live before / after change register
The same two XER samples load automatically; inspect the actual changes and export the CSV.
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