Most delay claims I review aren’t really about delays.

They’re about poor planning — dressed up as one.

And the difference matters.

Legally. Commercially. Professionally.

A genuine delay has three things:

1. A clear event.

Something happened. You can name it. You can date it.

A permit refused. Design issued late. Access not given when promised.

Not “things got complicated.” A specific event.

2. A defined impact window.

The event had a start and an end.

It affected a specific period of work, not “the whole project.”

Not “our overall productivity.”

A window. With edges.

3. A measurable effect on the critical path.

Not inconvenience.

Not disruption to non-critical work.

A traceable line from the event, through the schedule logic, to the completion date.

When those three things exist, you have entitlement worth pursuing.

When they don’t?

What you usually have is vague narrative.

Logic adjusted after the fact.

A position someone decided first and then built a claim around.

That’s not a delay claim.

That’s a story.

And the moment an expert starts pulling on it, it unravels fast.

Contract first, method second.

Always.

What’s the most common mistake you see in delay claims? I’d be curious to hear what others are seeing.