STOINTELLIGENCE
Data-driven. Field-proven.

STO·SPR · Schedule Performance Review

Where did the time really go, and what do you change next time?

Your baseline made a promise. The as-built, the gate log, the change orders, and the daily reports recorded what happened. STO·SPR joins them all, measures the event against the commitment, and tests every explanation for why against your own records, so your closeout is evidence, not memory, and your next turnaround starts ahead.

The post-mortem, computed, not recalled.

Outcome vs the planIllustrative
+20 days
finish against the committed baseline

34%
critical path
retained
0.78
earned /
actual hours
0.92
top cause
confidence

The problem

A lessons-learned meeting produces opinions. Your records hold the evidence.

Most closeouts are a room full of memory and a binder that gets filed. Yet the reason the date moved is already written down, scattered across records nobody joins up: the schedule, the gate log, the change-order log, the daily reports. Until the explanations are tested against those records, the closeout is a story, and the same misses return.

Opinions, not evidence
The loudest voice writes the lessons, and the data is never opened

What people remember and what the schedule records are rarely the same thing.

The same misses return
Every event relearns what the last one already paid to learn

Without a measured cause, the fix is a slogan, and the slip comes back.

An outcome you cannot defend
No independent account of why the date moved

Leadership asks what happened, and the answer is a story, not a number.


What it measures

We join your baseline to the as-built, and read it four ways.

STO·SPR task-matches the frozen baseline to the completed schedule, then measures the event at every level. Every figure is computed by the engine; the written account is validated against it, never the other way around.

01 · Variance

Event, phase, and unit

Where the days were won and lost, from the whole event down to the single unit and the clearing, maintenance, and startup windows.

02 · Critical path

Plan versus as-built

What actually governed execution, how much of the planned path survived, and what entered and left it.

03 · Productivity

Earned over actual hours

The completed schedule’s earned hours against the gate-log actuals, by craft, so productivity is measured, not guessed.

Where the days went

Clearing+2 d
Maintenance+9 d
Discovered scope+6 d
Startup+3 d
Days late against the baseline, by phase · total +20 d · illustrative

Productivity by craft

0.82
Pipefitters
earned / actual
0.71
Boilermakers
earned / actual
0.93
E & I
earned / actual
0.68
Riggers
earned / actual

Earned hours over gate-log actuals, execution window. Reported only where the gate log covers enough of the hours to be meaningful.


Why it slipped

Every explanation for the slip, tested against your own records.

The engine raises thirteen candidate explanations deterministically from the measurements themselves, scope growth, late adds, productivity, undermanning, a critical-path shift, discovered work, external events among them. Each hypothesis is then tested against the change-order log and the daily reports, and returns a verdict, supported, partially supported, unsupported, or insufficient evidence, with a stated confidence. What could not be established is said plainly, so you know exactly which answers deserve action.

The records we pull in

Baseline + as-builtTask-matched, so variance and the critical path are read against the frozen promise.
Gate logLabor actuals in whatever format the site keeps, normalized to craft for earned-over-actual productivity.
Change-order logParsed to structured rows: dates, reasons, magnitudes. Corroborates where the added hours came from.
Daily reportsIndexed and searchable, so every hypothesis is tested against the field record.
Cost reportClient-supplied, read as indicative context, never treated as ground truth.

The verdicts that come back

Discovered scope0.92
Critical-path shift0.85
Baseline quality0.72
Undermanning0.55
Weather / externaln/e
Hypothesis confidence, 0 to 1 · ember supported, grey partially supported · weather returned insufficient evidence · illustrative

Did the plan predict reality

The accountability loop most closeouts skip.

We score the baseline’s own quality against the outcome it produced. Each risk the plan carried is paired with what actually happened, and classified, so the readiness review that came before is held to account and the next one gets sharper.

Critical path · plan vs as-built

34%of the planned critical path
survived into execution
Left the path: the exchanger-bundle chain the plan said would govern.
Entered the path: discovered weld repair on the reactor, unplanned.
The shift: execution was governed by work the baseline never put on the critical path.

Flagged, then what happened

Flagged in the baselineWhat actually happened
Readiness: ConditionalMissed the committed date by 20 days   Materialized
C2 unexplained float (Severe)53% of matched activities finished late   Materialized
C3 path reach (Material)0% of the planned critical path survived   Materialized
Materials on-site riskMitigated, delivered to need date   Held
Not flaggedPSSR drove 25% of the startup slip   Emerged unflagged

What you get

An action register, not another binder.

The report ranks the credible causes by confidence and states what could not be established. The deliverable is a register of specific, owned actions in two tiers, next-event and systemic, each tied to a tested cause. It closes the assurance loop into the next event’s premise, and the coded outcomes build your benchmark over time.

In
Every record
of the event
Engine
Measure, then
test why
Out
Causes + action
register + report

Every number is computed by the engine behind a hard wall: the model weighs the evidence and writes the account, is validated against the figures, and never invents one. Any cost you supply is reported as indicative, never treated as ground truth.

STO·SPR runs as a standalone review, or as the performance engine inside a STOAR4 closeout, where it opens the lessons workshop on measured facts.


What changes

The difference at the next event.

Without STO·SPR

  • ×Lessons written from memory, and quietly filed
  • ×Competing theories for the slip, none of them tested
  • ×The same phase and the same craft slip again next event

With STO·SPR

  • A quantified account of where the time and hours went
  • Every explanation tested against your records, with a stated confidence
  • Owned actions tied to a tested cause, and a benchmark that compounds

Turn your last turnaround into your next one’s advantage.

Send us the baseline, the as-built, and the records you already keep. We will show you where the time went, why it went there, and how much confidence each answer deserves.