Building a claim evidence pack
Turn project records into a chronology, evidence index and traceable claim calculation, while showing gaps and competing explanations.
by Jack Butler-Kettle · 60–90 min course · About 19 min readShare
Your course at a glance
Start here: Anyone organising construction records for an initial claim review or response. No claims experience is assumed; you will practise a small labour-cost example, not a full legal or delay analysis.
Your finished output: Build a balanced evidence pack with an issue statement, chronology, indexed records, supported calculation and a clear list of unanswered questions.
Plan for 60–90 minutes. The suggested activities total about 75 minutes: 5 to prepare, 42 for lessons and practice, 8 for the knowledge check and 20 for the final task. This is a planning estimate, not a timed or accredited course. Pause or repeat any stage.
You need a calculator and somewhere to write. All project facts and figures are fictional learning examples. Use them for the exercises; keep confidential project information out of these practice fields.
- Separate an allegation, a fact, an inference and a contractual conclusion.
- Preserve and index records without losing context.
- Connect an event to supported resource and cost effects.
- Present contrary evidence and gaps so a reviewer can test the claim.
For a fixed-price review of one claim, see Claim viability review in Express 24/7 for contractors and subcontractors.
Before you begin · 5 minutes
Four people attended site for eight hours each. Is that enough to prove 32 hours of recoverable loss? Write what else you would need to know.
An uncertain answer is a useful starting point. Keep it and compare your reasoning after the course.
0 of 6 lessons reviewed · 0 of 5 final checks ticked
Review ticks record your own progress. Written work is self-assessed against the model and criteria; it is not automatically marked.
Use Save progress to keep your writing and review ticks on this device.
Saved work stays in this browser’s storage; it does not sync between devices. Quiz selections are not saved. On a shared device, download your work and clear it here.
1. Learn and practise
Work through the lessons in order. Read the explanation, attempt the task without the model, then compare your reasoning. Correct your work before ticking the lesson. Expand one lesson at a time or keep several open.
1. Understand the questions a claim must answer
About 7 minutesA claim asks for a remedy under a particular basis, such as additional payment or time. An evidence pack lets another person test that request. It is not simply a large folder of records supporting one preferred story. A response to a claim needs the same discipline: identify what is established, disputed or still unknown.
Keep four questions distinct. What happened? Why is the other party said to be responsible under the agreement? How did the event cause the stated effect? What quantity, cost or time is supported? These are sometimes described as facts, entitlement, causation and quantum. Quantum means the amount or measure of the claim; it is not a substitute for the other questions.
An allegation is a statement to be tested. A contemporaneous record was made at or near the event. An inference is a conclusion drawn from evidence. A contractual conclusion depends on the applicable terms and law. Label them accurately. “The crew was on site” is different from “the crew could do no productive work”, which is different again from “the cost is recoverable from the other party”.
Start small: define the event, work area, period, people or resources affected and remedy being considered. Narrowing the issue helps you collect relevant records and identify what remains outside the review.
Your turn
Classify these statements: “The access email was sent at 07:40”; “all four people were idle”; “the other party must pay”; “the diary says two people moved elsewhere”. For each, identify a source or check you would need.
Compare your reasoning
The email time is a record fact if verified from the original message and context. “All four were idle” is an allegation requiring allocation and activity evidence. “Must pay” is a contractual/legal conclusion requiring responsibility, procedure, causation and recovery analysis. The diary statement is evidence of what its author recorded, to be tested against other records. Do not turn one record into a conclusion it cannot support.
If your answer differs, identify why, revisit the relevant explanation and correct your response. Equivalent wording is fine when the reasoning and checks are sound.
2. Preserve originals and build a usable index
About 7 minutesKeep original messages with attachments, photographs with available metadata, native programme files, diary entries, allocation sheets and cost records. Work on copies for annotation. Record where material came from, its author, date, version and any limitations. Do not alter an original to make the account easier to present.
Give each item a stable reference such as D-07 for a diary or AL-07 for an allocation sheet. An index should state the reference, date, description, author/source, file location and relevant issue. Name files consistently, but do not rely on a filename as proof of when an event happened. A later export date may differ from the date of the underlying record.
Preserve context: surrounding correspondence, superseded versions and records that point away from your initial explanation. Restrict access appropriately and follow applicable retention and disclosure advice. If a document is missing, record the gap, who may hold it and an action to obtain it. Do not reconstruct a missing original and present it as contemporaneous.
The purpose is traceability. A reviewer should find a cited record quickly, understand its provenance and see exactly what part supports the point. A hundred unindexed attachments are harder to assess than a small, complete, referenced set.
Your turn
Create index rows for an access email, a site diary, a labour allocation sheet and a later manager’s recollection. Include date, author, source and limitation. Explain how you would label the recollection and what you would do if its date conflicts with the diary.
Compare your reasoning
Use stable references and preserve the original sources. Label the recollection as a later account with the date it was made and the event date it describes. Keep the conflict visible rather than choosing the convenient version. Ask the author to clarify, seek independent records and explain the uncertainty in the chronology. A correction or clarification should be dated and distinguishable from the original.
If your answer differs, identify why, revisit the relevant explanation and correct your response. Equivalent wording is fine when the reasoning and checks are sound.
3. Define the event and test the initial allegation
About 7 minutesThe running example concerns access restrictions over two four-hour mornings. Four operatives were booked for both mornings. The initial allegation is 4 people × 4 hours × 2 mornings = 32 lost labour hours. Attendance establishes presence or allocation; it does not by itself establish idle time or recoverability.
Write a neutral issue statement: which area was restricted, on which dates, what work was planned and what effect is alleged. Identify the source of the planned work and the source of the restriction. Check whether other work was available, whether people were redeployed and whether any restrictions affected only part of each period.
Build a question list before calculating. Who controlled access? What did the contract require? What notice was needed? What work would have happened without the restriction? What actually happened? Which costs were incurred and which were avoided? Separate these questions so an apparently strong answer to one does not hide a gap in another.
The records and evidence guide provides the wider record structure. For this course, the goal is an initial review pack that exposes the supported position and the checks still needed, not a declaration that the claim must succeed.
Your turn
Write a neutral issue statement of three sentences for the 32-hour allegation. List four records that could test it and one contractual question. Avoid describing all attendance as loss before reviewing the records.
Compare your reasoning
Identify the restricted area and two mornings, the planned four-person activity and the alleged 32 hours. State that actual allocation and productive work require checking. Useful records include the access email, planned work/programme, diaries, allocation sheets and timesheets. A contractual question is which obligation or risk allocation applies to providing access. The statement should distinguish the allegation from a verified result.
If your answer differs, identify why, revisit the relevant explanation and correct your response. Equivalent wording is fine when the reasoning and checks are sound.
4. Build the chronology and include contrary facts
About 7 minutesA chronology is a dated sequence of relevant events with source references. Use columns for date/time, event, record, effect and uncertainty. Distinguish when something happened from when someone later reported it. Link each important statement to the relevant part of a record rather than attaching a whole folder without direction.
On the first morning, the allocation sheet records two operatives redeployed for four hours: eight hours of productive work elsewhere. On the second morning, access reopened after two hours, allowing all four operatives to work for the remaining two hours: another eight productive hours. These facts reduce the initially alleged loss.
Do not hide the records because they are inconvenient. Explain their effect and correct the calculation. Conversely, do not assume a record proves more than it says. A reopening email may establish availability of access, while a diary or activity record helps establish when productive work resumed. Identify any mismatch between those records.
At the end of the chronology, list unresolved conflicts and enquiries. A clear uncertainty is more useful than a confident narrative that silently fills gaps. Ask another reader to find the evidence for each event before moving to the cost calculation.
Your turn
Create two chronology rows for the redeployment and reopening. Calculate productive hours removed from the allegation on each morning. Add a third row for a missing supervisor record, explaining how the gap affects confidence without inventing its contents.
Compare your reasoning
First morning: 2 × 4 = 8 hours redeployed, referenced to the allocation sheet. Second morning: 4 × 2 = 8 hours productive after reopening, referenced to access and activity records. Record the missing supervisor note as an outstanding enquiry, with an owner and source to contact. Explain which fact it might clarify; do not assume it confirms the preferred explanation.
If your answer differs, identify why, revisit the relevant explanation and correct your response. Equivalent wording is fine when the reasoning and checks are sound.
5. Connect supported hours to an evidenced cost basis
About 7 minutesCorrect the initial 32 hours by removing the eight redeployed hours and eight productive hours after reopening. Supported idle time on the supplied facts is 16 hours. At the expressly assumed evidenced cost basis of £30 per hour, the calculation is 16 × £30 = £480. The initial untested 32 × £30 = £960 would double the supported hours.
Show a calculation row for each period. State the people, hours, exclusions, rate source and amount. This makes it possible to change a fact without losing the reasoning. A lump-sum claim with a timesheet attached does not give the same clarity.
Check the rate. A tender selling rate, payroll cost and recoverable contractual rate may differ. Establish the applicable valuation/recovery basis and evidence, including any permitted allowances, rather than choosing the largest available number. Check for overlap with variations, preliminaries or another claim. Record costs avoided or recovered elsewhere where relevant.
Supported cost is not automatic entitlement. Responsibility, notice compliance, causal connection and recoverability still require assessment. The point of this exercise is to calculate honestly from the evidence while making those separate questions visible.
Worked fictional example
Test attendance before treating it as loss Step Hours Evidence or assumption Initial attendance 32 4 operatives × 4 hours × 2 mornings Productive redeployment −8 2 operatives × 4 hours on morning 1 Work after reopening −8 4 operatives × 2 hours on morning 2 Supported idle time 16 32 − 8 − 8 Supported cost £480 16 hours × assumed evidenced £30/hour Your turn
Reproduce the 16-hour and £480 calculations. Then change the second morning so access reopened after three hours rather than two, with all four people working the last hour. Calculate the revised supported hours and cost, leaving every other assumption unchanged.
Compare your reasoning
Original: 32 − 8 − 8 = 16 hours; 16 × £30 = £480. Revised: productive work after reopening is 4 × 1 = 4 hours, so 32 − 8 − 4 = 20 hours; 20 × £30 = £600. The change must be supported by revised evidence, not merely an input chosen to increase the claim. The contractual and recovery questions remain separate in both versions.
If your answer differs, identify why, revisit the relevant explanation and correct your response. Equivalent wording is fine when the reasoning and checks are sound.
6. Assemble, challenge and issue the review pack
About 7 minutesArrange the pack in the order a reviewer needs: issue and remedy, applicable contractual questions, chronology, causal explanation, calculation, evidence index and outstanding enquiries. Give the pack a date, revision and scope. A short summary should state the supported result and material limitations, not repeat the initial allegation after the evidence has changed it.
Use a challenge review. Can another reader reproduce the hours and cost? Do the chronology and calculation use the same dates? Is every source findable? Have contrary records, alternative explanations and gaps been included? Does the conclusion claim more than the records establish? Check for duplicate recovery and arithmetic errors.
For a response to someone else’s claim, use the same structure: identify accepted facts, disputed points, reasons and evidence needed. A Scott schedule may help where an item-by-item presentation suits the issue, but the format cannot replace the underlying analysis.
Before issue, obtain the appropriate review and approval, check procedural deadlines and preserve the exact issued version and delivery record. Keep enquiries live after issue and revise transparently when new facts emerge. An organised preliminary pack can support a specialist review without pretending to complete every specialist task.
Your turn
Write a five-sentence review summary for the original example. It must state the initial allegation, corrected hours and cost, why the figure changed, the remaining contractual checks and one evidence enquiry. Ask whether a reader could distinguish a supported calculation from an assertion of entitlement.
Compare your reasoning
A strong summary says that 32 hours were initially alleged; allocation and reopening records remove 16 productive hours; 16 supported idle hours at the assumed £30 cost basis give £480. It identifies the references and explains that responsibility, notice requirements and recovery still need review. It states any missing supervisor record or other gap and assigns follow-up. It does not describe £480 as automatically payable.
If your answer differs, identify why, revisit the relevant explanation and correct your response. Equivalent wording is fine when the reasoning and checks are sound.
2. Check your understanding
Check your understanding
Allow 8 minutes. Close the lesson notes, answer each question and explain your choice to yourself. Read the feedback, revisit any weak point and try again. These checks support learning; they do not certify professional competence.
Answer notes
- 16 hours. The redeployment removes eight hours and the reopened access removes another eight: 32 − 8 − 8 = 16.
- £480. Sixteen supported hours × £30 per hour = £480. The contractual basis and recoverability still need assessment.
- Keep it, explain its effect and correct the claim where necessary. The claim should reflect the evidence. Recording competing explanations and correcting the figures makes the assessment traceable and avoids overstating the loss.
3. Complete the independent task
Allow 20 minutes. Use the new facts below to produce the finished output. Try it before opening the model response, then revise your work against every checking criterion.
Your project brief
Build an initial evidence pack for a separate fictional access event. Use a neutral explanation and show what the evidence supports, including facts that reduce the claim.
- Plan P1
- Three operatives scheduled for a five-hour morning in Area B.
- Access email E1
- Area B restricted at the start; access reopened after three hours.
- Allocation AL1
- One operative worked productively elsewhere for the first three hours, then rejoined the team.
- Diary D1
- All three operatives worked productively in Area B for the final two hours.
- Cost record C1
- For this exercise, evidenced cost is £32 per operative-hour; no other cost adjustments.
- Missing information
- Responsibility for access, relevant contract provisions and notice compliance have not been established.
Compare with the model response
Initial attendance is 3 × 5 = 15 operative-hours. AL1 records 1 × 3 = 3 productive hours elsewhere. D1 records 3 × 2 = 6 productive hours after access reopens. These periods do not overlap. Supported idle time is 15 − 3 − 6 = 6 hours; equivalently, two idle operatives for the first three hours. At £32 per hour, supported cost is £192.
Index P1, E1, AL1, D1 and C1 and connect them to the chronology and calculation. AL1 and D1 are material contrary evidence against treating all attendance as loss. State the scope and any source limitations. Responsibility, contract terms, procedure, causation and recovery still need review; do not call £192 an established entitlement.
Assign someone to obtain the contract and relevant notices, check access responsibility and review any conflicting records. Issue a dated, referenced preliminary pack with a clear enquiry list.
Check your finished work
Tick a criterion only when your work demonstrates it. If a calculation, source or required check is missing, revisit the relevant lesson and revise the output before using the method on a project.
4. Review and use what you learned
Return to your starting response. Explain what you would now do differently and why. The aim is a reliable method you can repeat, including knowing when information or specialist review is needed.
- Tomorrow, explain facts, entitlement, causation and quantum without opening the lesson.
- In a week, rebuild the project calculation from the records and check why the deductions do not overlap.
- On a live issue, preserve originals and obtain timely specialist review where the legal, programme or recovery analysis exceeds your experience.
Use the blank templates below to practise the record format. Their completed examples have their own stated facts; keep those figures separate from your independent course task.
Claim evidence pack
Replace the example with contemporaneous records. Preserve original files and show both supporting and contrary evidence; distinguish assumptions from observed facts.
Free blank template for your own project. The completed example is shown below. No email address required.
View the completed example
Completed fictional example
Westhaven refurbishment · 14 October 2026 · Version 1.0
Issue and chronology
Scroll across if needed to read the whole record. A dash means no value has been entered.
| Date / time | Event | Evidence | Effect / limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Oct 08:00–12:00 | Level 1 access restricted; four installers planned | D-07; AL-07; TS-07 | 16 planned hours; 8 redeployed elsewhere |
| 8 Oct 08:00–12:00 | Access restricted until 10:00, then reopened | D-08; AL-08; TS-08 | 16 planned hours; 8 productive after reopening |
| 14 Oct | Claim reviewed against logs and timesheets | Review CR-14 | 32 claimed hours reduced to 16 supported idle hours |
Evidence index
Scroll across if needed to read the whole record. A dash means no value has been entered.
| Reference | Record / author | Original file location | What it shows | Limit / check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-07 | Site diary, A. Reed, 7 Oct | /project/evidence/D-07.pdf | Access closed 08:00–12:00; two people redeployed | Read with signed timesheets |
| D-08 | Site diary, A. Reed, 8 Oct | /project/evidence/D-08.pdf | Access reopened 10:00 | Contradicts four-hour stoppage for all staff |
| TS-07/08 | Approved labour allocations | /project/evidence/TS-07-08.xlsx | Named hours by work area | Check no duplicate recovery |
| AL-07/08 | Contractor access logs | /project/evidence/AL-07-08.pdf | Access closure and reopening times | Does not establish contractual liability |
Supported labour calculation
Scroll across if needed to read the whole record. A dash means no value has been entered.
| Day | Initially claimed hours | Redeployed / productive hours | Supported idle hours | Verified cost / hour (£) | Supported cost (£) | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Oct | 16 | 8 | 8 | £30.00 | £240.00 | 4 people × 4 h; 2 people × 4 h redeployed |
| 8 Oct | 16 | 8 | 8 | £30.00 | £240.00 | 4 people × 4 h; 4 people × 2 h productive |
All evidence references are fictional teaching exhibits. The example supports £480 of recorded idle labour cost; contractual entitlement and completion delay still require separate assessment.
This is a foundation for the defined task, not a professional qualification or a substitute for checking the actual contract and project. Use the sources and related resources below to continue learning.