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

They’re about poor planning dressed up as a delay.

And the difference matters – legally, commercially, and professionally.

A genuine delay has three things.

A clear event. Something happened – a design issue was issued late, a permit was refused, access wasn’t given on the date it was promised. You can name it. You can date it.

A defined impact window. The event had a start and an end. It affected a specific period of work, not “the whole project” or “our overall productivity.”

A measurable effect on the critical path. Not just inconvenience. Not just disruption. A traceable line from the event to the completion date – through the logic of the schedule.

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

When they don’t?

What you usually have is vague narratives. No clear driver. Logic that was adjusted after the fact to support a position someone had already decided to take.

That’s not a delay claim. That’s a story.

And the moment an expert or a lawyer starts pulling on that story, it unravels fast.

I’m not saying subcontractors and contractors don’t get genuinely delayed. They absolutely do. Regularly.

But the discipline of separating what actually happened from what felt like it happened, that’s where most claims fall apart.

If you can’t isolate causation clearly, it’s probably planning noise.

Not entitlement.

Contract first, method second. Always.