Sample Review
Mei HaSharon 2032 is a fictional coastal water-infrastructure programme, approaching its major construction release gate. Everything on this page comes from one Review of that programme’s material, run through the same journey a customer’s Review runs through: the sources supplied, what could be assessed from them, what PMAC surfaced, and the report it produced.
Synthetic demonstration. The organisations, people and documents are fictional, and no client data is used.
What was reviewed
The distinction matters, because it decides what PMAC can state deterministically and what it can only draw on.
Each is declared in its role and read through its own deterministic contract. Only typed evidence can open a deterministic assessment.
A Microsoft Project export. Its dates, baseline and recorded progress are read directly, task by task.
Read as the programme's own record of who is involved, and of the external approvals it depends on.
Read record by record. Each risk keeps its own identifier, statement and named risk owner, exactly as supplied.
Read as narrative. Supporting Context can inform a finding, and is cited wherever it does. It does not open a deterministic assessment, and a statement a source reports stays source-reported.
The Review reflects the position recorded at the schedule’s status date, 17 September 2026, and was analysed on 19 September 2026. The report states both, and every relative statement in it is made against one of them.
What PMAC assessed
The Evidence Map describes the evidence available to the Review, not project performance. A domain is deterministically assessable only where the supplied typed evidence opens the capabilities its criteria are checked against.
Not assessable is a neutral state. It is a limit of the deterministic assessment, not a finding about the programme, and not a claim that the material holds nothing relevant. Supporting Context may still inform individual findings in that domain, and in this Review it does: the commissioning-accountability flag below sits in Project Work.
The schedule carried a full baseline, so schedule performance is computed and stated. It carried no cost, so cost performance is not.
What PMAC surfaced
The report’s bottom line: the programme’s front end has executed well, and the next gate carries several unresolved conditions, none of which prevents the gate alone. The findings are ordered by their significance at that gate. Each one names the sources behind it.
Evidence: The schedule's approval task against its baseline finish; the Integrated Project Review of September 2026; the stakeholder register's recorded gate dependency; the risk register's own entry.
Evidence: Two schedule tasks and their recorded progress; the Integrated Project Review's four open integration threads and the action it assigned; the risk register.
Evidence: The Procurement Readiness Review's award target; the Integrated Project Review's record of the unfrozen criteria and the exception document it directed; the schedule's award task.
Evidence: The stakeholder register's working lead and its 'to be confirmed' accountability; the governance document; the Integrated Project Review's assigned action; the risk register.
Decisions raised
The programme’s governance document keeps its own decision log, D-01 to D-05. The report keeps the two apart: the programme’s items are cited as source-reported, and the count is of decisions PMAC raised. Where a decision names an owner, the report says where that name comes from, for example a meeting action, rather than presenting it as PMAC’s own.
Wait for unconditional approval, or authorise a defined conditional release of marine civil scope. The programme's own review directed a decision pack for this; the report says the decision cannot be left to the gate meeting itself.
The technical solution is approved. Until one integrated implementation basis is issued for every affected interface, the gate's design criterion cannot close.
Separate the conditions that can close after award from those that must close before it, and decide on that named, documented basis rather than at the award itself.
Assign integrated commissioning, acceptance and handover accountability at or before major construction release, while the integration gap is still narrow.
The report closes with a proposed Steering Committee agenda that takes these decisions in sequence, beginning with the external dependencies the committee cannot defer.
Evidence limits
Every absence in the report is scoped to the material supplied. “Not evidenced in the supplied material” is what it says; it does not say the programme lacks the practice. Nothing missing is estimated, inferred or filled in.
The deliverable
One report, written for print, in two editions: twelve A4 pages in English and nine in Hebrew. The content is what the Review generated, unchanged; every page carries the synthetic-demonstration marking.
Evidence-based Project Assurance. Synthetic demonstration, no client data.
Start with a conversation. No project material is needed for it.
We use Google Analytics and Contentsquare to understand how the website is used and improve the service. They only run if you accept. See our Privacy Policy.