Situation
A fictional contractor has field notes, photos and emails related to potential change events. The records are spread across project folders and inboxes. A project manager needs to review what happened, identify missing evidence and decide what action is appropriate.
The task is evidence preparation. It is not pricing, entitlement analysis, approval or a contract commitment.
Proposed workflow
- Group authorized records by project and potential event.
- Draft a chronology that links every statement to a source record.
- Flag missing dates, conflicting accounts and unclear ownership.
- Present the original records alongside the draft.
- Require the project manager to correct and approve the final summary.
The reviewer can reject the draft. The underlying records remain available. A generated sentence without a source is treated as unsupported, not as evidence.
What to evaluate
Compare time to an approved summary with the existing process. Count unsupported statements, missing records, source mismatches, reviewer corrections and rejected drafts. Track reviewer time, including exception handling.
Use ordinary events and difficult events in the sample. Test records with conflicting dates, unclear project identifiers and incomplete notes.
What this example does not establish
This example establishes no recovered revenue, time saving or project outcome. It does not determine contractual entitlement and does not recommend a particular product. A real pilot would require authorized records, a measured baseline, agreed controls and a named reviewer.