Sample Planner Report

North Harbour Expansion — Schedule Review

A detailed Planning Engineer report built from the same analysis data used in Planner Workspace. This sample shows the structure and level of detail in the report without using customer or Staging data.

Report level: Planning Engineer
Source: MSP XML
Contract: 3.0-planner
Analysis: Demo #118
Data Date: Sep 18, 2026
Analysis run: Sep 19, 2026 · 18:00 UTC
Report generated: Sep 19, 2026 · 18:03 UTC
Classification: Not configured (demo)

Plan comparison Back to Home

1. Management summary

Review these findings before relying on the schedule for formal issue.

The schedule has enough structure for review, but the current findings show that logic completeness, negative-float exposure, hard constraints and selected relationship design should be addressed before the schedule is presented as fully defensible.

Publication decision

Needs review

Address the highest-priority findings, then work through the remaining items before the schedule is issued.

Schedule health

79 / 100

Overall schedule-health score

Planner confidence

74 / 100

How strongly the available evidence supports the review

Publication Readiness

Review

Review the findings before the schedule is issued

Immediate Actions

Recommended follow-up in this sample

2. Project Context and Analysis Perspective

What was reviewed and how this report should be read.

Project

North Harbour Expansion

Source file

North_Harbour_Detailed_Schedule.xml

Analysis perspective

Current Forecast / Data Date

Stored analysis

Demo #118 · Completed

Data Date

Sep 18, 2026

Analysis run

Sep 19, 2026 · 18:00 UTC

Report generated

Sep 19, 2026 · 18:03 UTC

Baseline state

Baseline 0 available

Actual evidence

Available to Data Date

Forecast S-Curve

Not available from the current analysis data

Classification

Not configured for this demo

The report uses the same Planner Report Contract as the workspace. It displays the stored scores, severities, findings and recommendations without recalculating them. If the source does not support a value, the report says so instead of filling the gap with an assumed number.

3. Schedule at a Glance

Most of the schedule is usable for review, but a few findings need attention before it is relied on.

Health

Review

Confidence

Review

Highest finding severity

High

Logic / Float

P1 actions

Before formal issue

4. Schedule health

Schedule health by category.

Category	Score	Highest finding severity	What this means for the review
Logic	72	High	Open ends and isolated network conditions need planner review before publication.
Relationships	84	Medium	Relationship design is broadly usable, with selected lag-heavy links requiring validation.
Constraints	81	Medium	Hard and date-driven constraints should be checked against planning intent.
Float	76	High	Negative and low-float exposure requires attention around critical and near-critical work.
Critical path	83	Medium	Critical activity population is usable but should be read together with constraint and float findings.
Milestones	91	Low	The milestone structure does not raise a material concern in this sample review.
Calendars	93	Low	No material calendar-quality finding is triggered in this illustrative contract.
Progress	88	Medium	Progress evidence is usable as of the stated Data Date, subject to task-level evidence review.

5. What Is Affecting the Score

Why the scores are lower than 100.

Logic

−11.4 pts

Open-ended activities create the largest visible health deficit in this illustrative analysis.

Constraints

−6.2 pts

Constraint findings contribute to the health deficit and require planner validation.

Severity confidence penalty

−5.0 pts

High-severity findings reduce displayed Planner confidence beyond the health score.

These sample values show how score drivers are presented. In the product, the values come directly from the selected analysis.

6. Key Schedule Metrics

Key schedule metrics behind the findings.

Planning Scope

Activities reviewed: 408
Summary tasks: 36
Milestones: 27
Calendars: 5
Custom calendars: 2

Logic & Relationships

Relationships checked: 394
Lag relationships: 31
Excessive lag: 3
Open-ended activities: 4

Constraints & Float

Hard constraints: 3
Soft constraints: 8
Date-driven constraints: 6
Negative float activities: 2
Zero float activities: 11
Low-float activities: 29

Progress

Started activities: 126
Finished activities: 74
Activities with progress: 142
Average percent complete: 42%
Data-date review: Required

7. S-Curve progress

Planned and actual progress, with a clear note about what the source file does and does not support.

Data Date: Sep 18, 2026

Selected baseline: Baseline 0

Planned mode: Derived baseline evidence

Actual mode: Task-level actual evidence

Progress aggregation: Duration-weighted percent complete

Forecast series: Unavailable

The actual series is rebuilt from task-level evidence rather than a native Microsoft Project time-phased curve. Calendar-aware distribution and forecast S-Curves are not available from the current analysis data.

8. Prioritized Schedule Findings

Findings, evidence and what to do next.

HighLogicF-001 · Rule LOGIC-001

Open-ended activities

Evidence

Four eligible activities are missing predecessor and/or successor logic.

What may be causing it

Network logic is incomplete or intentional exceptions are not documented.

Effect on the schedule

Dates may be less defensible because portions of the network are not fully logic-driven.

Why it matters

Planner confidence in downstream dates and critical-path interpretation is reduced.

Recommended follow-up

Add or validate predecessor/successor logic and document any justified exception.

Verification

Re-run analysis and confirm the affected activities no longer trigger the rule unless intentionally exempt.

MediumConstraintsF-002 · Rule CON-004

Hard constraints on review-sensitive activities

Evidence

Three activities use hard constraints in the current schedule evidence.

What may be causing it

Dates may have been fixed to represent commitments, interfaces or manually controlled targets.

Effect on the schedule

Hard constraints can override network flexibility and affect float/path interpretation.

Why it matters

Management dates may appear firmer than the underlying logic alone would support.

Recommended follow-up

Validate each hard constraint and replace it with network logic where the constraint is not contractually or operationally required.

Verification

Confirm remaining hard constraints are justified and documented after schedule correction.

MediumRelationshipsF-003 · Rule REL-006

Excessive lag requires engineering review

Evidence

Three relationships contain lag above the configured review threshold.

What may be causing it

Lag may be representing work, waiting time or interface logic that is not modeled as an activity.

Effect on the schedule

Hidden waiting time can reduce transparency and make schedule maintenance more difficult.

Why it matters

Reviewers may not be able to see or challenge the operational assumption represented by the lag.

Recommended follow-up

Review the affected relationships and convert significant waiting periods to explicit activities where appropriate.

Verification

Confirm lag values are intentional, supported and maintainable after review.

HighFloatF-004 · Rule FLT-001

Negative float exposure

Evidence

Two activities have negative float in the current schedule results.

What may be causing it

Current network dates, constraints or required dates are creating schedule pressure.

Effect on the schedule

Affected work may already be unable to meet a required or constrained target without recovery.

Why it matters

The planner should isolate the driving path before presenting recovery confidence.

Recommended follow-up

Trace the driving logic, constraints and required dates behind negative float and prepare a corrective/recovery response.

Verification

Recalculate after correction and confirm float disposition is understood and documented.

9. Recommended actions

Actions ordered by priority, with a clear way to verify each one.

Priority	Category	Action	Correction	How to close it out
P1	Logic	Resolve open-ended activities	Add or validate predecessor/successor logic.	No unjustified open ends remain.
P1	Float	Trace negative-float drivers	Identify the driving path, required dates and constraints.	Negative-float cause is documented and recovery response is defined.
P2	Constraints	Validate hard constraints	Retain only justified hard/date-driven constraints.	Remaining constraints have explicit planning rationale.
P2	Relationships	Review excessive lag	Model significant waiting time explicitly where appropriate.	Lagged relationships are documented or remodeled.
P2	Progress	Confirm status evidence	Review data date and task-level actual evidence.	Progress used for reporting is traceable to schedule evidence.

10. Evidence and source

Each finding shows the rule and schedule evidence behind it.

Trace	Finding	Rule	Category	Severity	Confidence	Affected	Action priority
TR-001	F-001	LOGIC-001	Logic	High	84	4	P1
TR-002	F-002	CON-004	Constraints	Medium	72	3	P2
TR-003	F-003	REL-006	Relationships	Medium	72	3	P2
TR-004	F-004	FLT-001	Float	High	84	2	P1

Appendix — file support and known limits

Validation

Contract valid: True
Consistent checks: True
Same checks each run: Yes
Source status: MSP XML parsed

Known limitations

Microsoft Project XML can vary by version, so some files may need additional validation.
The actual S-Curve is reconstructed from task-level actual data rather than a native time-phased curve.
The current S-Curve does not yet distribute progress by working calendar.
A forecast S-Curve is not available in the current version.

Next step

Run the same review on one of your own schedules.

Compare the plans, or return to the Home page to see how the workspace and report fit together.

Plan comparison Home