Illustrative sample. A fictional programme and invented documents, analysed by the same engine your projects use. No real organisation or data.

Project assurance report · illustrative sample

Northbridge Data Centre Exit (illustrative)

March 2026 · Evidence as of 20 Mar 2026 · 6 documents · 19 findings

Executive summary

2 critical and 10 high-priority findings need attention on Northbridge Data Centre Exit (illustrative).

Most material: 1 open risk is scored at critical exposure; Readiness is reported as achieved, but 4 readiness criteria are still open; 1 dependency has no accountable owner.

7 findings are based on documents that contradict each other — each shows both sides with their sources.

Calculated delivery confidence is 40/100 (guarded); see the methodology for its inputs.

Generated directly from the findings below.

2 critical10 high6 medium1 low

Critical

findings

High

findings

Conflicts

between documents

Overdue actions

of 6 open

Milestones at risk

of 7 dated

Delivery confidence

guarded · how it’s calculated

Most material findings

All 19 →

1 open risk is scored at critical exposure
Readiness is reported as achieved, but 4 readiness criteria are still open
1 dependency has no accountable owner
2 dependencies are late or at risk
2 open risks are scored at high exposure

Milestones

Findings

Ranked by materiality and evidence quality. Each shows its sources.

What was found: R-1 “Vendor cannot provide data extract in the agreed format” (L4 × I5 = 20).
Why it matters: Risks at this level are, on the project’s own scoring, both likely and severe. They warrant explicit governance attention and contingency.
Severity rationale: Likelihood × impact of 20 or more on a 5 × 5 scale, as scored in the source register.
Suggested next action: Confirm each has an owner, a funded mitigation and a contingency, and that it is on the next steering committee agenda.

Evidence

RAID Log 2026-03-13.csv · row 2as of 13 Mar 2026

States: L4 × I5

ID: R-1 | Type: Risk | Description: Vendor cannot provide data extract in the agreed format | Workstream: Data | Owner: P. Nair | Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 5 | Status: Open | Mitigation / Response: Weekly format review with vendor; A-7 to agree schema

Uncertainty: Scores are the project’s own. Uozan has not re-scored the risks.

What was found: 1 statement in reporting documents claim readiness, while the readiness evidence shows OR-2 “Monitoring and alerting configured for migrated services” in progress; OR-3 “DR test passed” open; OR-4 “Runbooks accepted by operations” open; OR-5 “Service catalogue updated” open.
Why it matters: Going live on an unsupported readiness claim is a primary cause of service-transition incidents.
Severity rationale: A governance-level claim directly contradicted by the criteria it depends on.
Suggested next action: Do not rely on the readiness claim until every criterion is evidenced and signed off by the receiving service owner.

Evidence — the sources disagree

This source

Programme Status Report - March 2026.txt · § “PROGRAMME STATUS REPORT”as of 18 Mar 2026

States: readiness claimed

Executive summary The programme remains on track. Wave 1 migration has been delivered and the service is operationally ready for go-live of Wave 2 as planned. Data migration rehearsal remains on track for the end of March.

Conflicting source

Operational Readiness Checklist 2026-03-16.csv · row 3as of 16 Mar 2026

States: In progress

ID: OR-2 | Readiness criterion: Monitoring and alerting configured for migrated services | Status: In progress | Due Date: 2026-03-20

Operational Readiness Checklist 2026-03-16.csv · row 4as of 16 Mar 2026

States: Not started

ID: OR-3 | Readiness criterion: DR test passed | Owner: K. Duffy | Status: Not started | Due Date: 2026-04-03

Operational Readiness Checklist 2026-03-16.csv · row 5as of 16 Mar 2026

States: Open

ID: OR-4 | Readiness criterion: Runbooks accepted by operations | Owner: T. Walsh | Status: Open | Due Date: 2026-03-27

Operational Readiness Checklist 2026-03-16.csv · row 6as of 16 Mar 2026

States: Not started

ID: OR-5 | Readiness criterion: Service catalogue updated | Status: Not started | Due Date: 2026-04-15

Uncertainty: The claim is matched by wording. Read the quoted passage to confirm it refers to the same release or service.

Risk analysis

As scored in the project’s own registers. Uozan does not re-score risks.

Likelihood

12345

Impact

Open risks

5 in registers

High exposure

likelihood × impact ≥ 15

Without an owner

open risks

Scored

with likelihood and impact

Concentration by workstream

Workstream	Open risks	Highest exposure
Data	1	max 20
Migration	1	max 16
Service Transition	1	max 15
Commercial	1	max 6

Milestones and schedule

Baseline against the most recent forecast or actual. Where documents disagree, the milestone is marked.

BaselineForecastCompleteSlipped / at riskLate or sources disagree≠Conflicting dates

Milestone	Baseline	Forecast / actual	Slip	Status	Sources
M-1Hosting contract signed	16 Jan 2026	16 Jan 2026	0d	complete	Single source
M-2Landing zone build complete	13 Feb 2026	20 Feb 2026	+7d	off track	Single source
M-3Wave 1 application migration	6 Mar 2026	13 Mar 2026	+7d	complete	2 agree
M-4Data migration rehearsal complete	27 Mar 2026	27 Mar 2026	0d	on track	Disagree
M-5Operational acceptance	10 Apr 2026	10 Apr 2026	0d	on track	Disagree
M-6Wave 2 cutover	24 Apr 2026	24 Apr 2026	0d	on track	Disagree
M-7Legacy data centre decommissioned	30 Jun 2026	31 Jul 2026	+31d	on track	Disagree

Critical-path analysis is not performed: it needs task-level logic links that status documents rarely contain.

Actions and accountability

Current state of each action, taken from the most recent document that mentions it.

Open

Overdue

No owner

No due date

Re-dated / deferred

Complete

5 actions are past due and not closed
1 decision is past the date it was needed
A-14 “Complete runbook for Wave 1 cutover” is complete in one document and not complete in another
2 actions have no accountable owner

Dependencies and blockers

Links stated in the documents (dependency columns, “depends on M4”, “mitigated by A-9”).

Arrows point from an item to what it depends on. Amber outline = referenced by a finding. Bar colour: blue dependency, grey milestone, orange risk.

1 dependency has no accountable owner
2 dependencies are late or at risk

Financial analysis

Deterministic arithmetic on figures stated in the documents. Missing figures are never estimated.

Budget

€2.55m

lines with budget & forecast

Forecast

€2.90m

Variance

+€350k

13.7% of budget

Actual to date

€1.43m

Hosting and network+€50k (+4.2%)

Migration services+€180k (+20%)

Dual running+€120k (+40%)

Contingency€0 (0%)

Actual to dateBudgetForecast (over budget)

Forecast exceeds budget by 13.7%
Documents give different forecast figures for “Hosting and network”

Sources and coverage

What each document contributed. Types and dates are detected automatically; they can be corrected on the project page.

Document	Detected type	As of	Passages	Items	Extraction
Integrated Plan v3 2026-02-02.csv	Plan / schedule	2 Feb 2026	7	7	complete
RAID Log 2026-03-13.csv	RAID log	13 Mar 2026	13	13	complete
Steering Committee Minutes 2026-03-11.txt	Meeting minutes	11 Mar 2026	9	4	complete
Programme Status Report - March 2026.txt	Status report	18 Mar 2026	13	7	complete
Budget Tracker 2026-03-01.csv	Financial	1 Mar 2026	4	4	complete
Operational Readiness Checklist 2026-03-16.csv	Readiness checklist	16 Mar 2026	5	5	complete

Methodology and limitations

How this report was produced

Text, tables and metadata were extracted from each document with their location (page, sheet and row, section, slide).
Structured registers were mapped to risks, actions, milestones, dependencies, decisions and budget lines by column. Narrative text was read by an AI model; an item was kept only if its quoted words and values appear verbatim in the source.
Items were matched across documents on shared IDs or strong title matches. Ambiguous matches were left separate.
Deterministic rules compared dates, statuses, owners and figures, taking each document’s date into account so that a newer document superseding an older one is not, on its own, treated as an error.
Findings were ranked by severity and evidence quality.

Delivery confidence — inputs

Indicator	Evidence	Weight	Score
Milestones on schedule Complete, or not late, not red and not slipped more than 14 days against baseline.	5 of 7	35%	71
Open actions within date Open actions whose due date has not passed.	1 of 6	20%	17
Risks below high exposure and owned Open risks scored below 15 (L × I) with a named owner.	1 of 4	25%	25
Cross-document consistency Items that appear in more than one document without a high-severity conflict.	3 of 8	20%	38

4 of 4 indicators had enough data; weights re-normalised over those. Rounded to the nearest 5. Capped at 55 because at least one critical finding is open. This is a calculated indicator of evidence health, not a forecast.

What each finding rests on

Stated in sourceCalculatedSources conflictInference — verifyMissing evidence

Findings are derived only from the documents uploaded. Information held elsewhere is not visible to the analysis.
This is decision support for a project professional. It is not an independent audit, has not been approved by any governance body, and does not guarantee correctness. Verify material findings against the cited sources before acting.