Sample schedule health report
This is a real report output from our engine, built from a synthetic 12-story office-building construction schedule. Every field you see comes from the actual analysis.
Schedule Health Score
Scored on the 14 DCMA checks. 3 value checks reported below are not scored.
Measured, not modeled: 47 → 92 after the fix plan.
This exact schedule was scanned (47/100), its remediation plan applied (constraints removed, open ends closed, leads converted, long tasks split), and the same file re-scanned: 92/100. Both numbers are real scans through the production engine, July 2026. Scoring is deterministic, so you can reproduce this.
And with a baseline and status date set: 94/100, every metric unlocks
The same schedule, baselined and statused at a mid-project data date, re-scanned through the same engine: 94/100 with 15 of 17 checks passing and full assessment coverage. CPLI 1.00 · BEI 1.00 · 0 missed tasks · 0 invalid dates · forecast finish on baseline. With clean status data, the risk analysis un-gates too: exact-date P50/P80 confidence instead of a provisional illustration.
Download the baselined sample and score it yourselfYour Schedule Health Score is always a number from 0 to 100. Here is how we get there. We run 17 checks, but only the 14 DCMA checks are scored; each carries a weight based on how much it affects whether a schedule will hold, 104 weight points in total. Your score is the share of the applicable points your schedule earns: pass a check and you keep its points, fail it and you lose them. If a check does not apply to your file, we leave it out of the total so it never counts against you. The 3 value checks (15–17) are reported for insight but never affect the score. The 104 points are just the internal scale. The number you see is normalized to 0 to 100, so you can compare any two schedules and track the same one over time.
Summary
This 12-story office-tower schedule shows serious health issues that will cause a late finish without intervention. The most urgent problems: (1) 21 tasks carry negative float: an imposed "Must Finish On" dry-in date the logic cannot support, so the schedule already predicts a late finish mathematically; (2) six open ends (foundation backfill, floor pours, fireproofing, casework) mean delays cannot propagate, so float is unreliable across the network; (3) 28% of tasks carry more than 44 days of float, a sign of missing logic tying early trades to the work that consumes them; (4) nine tasks run longer than 44 days (steel fabrication, curtain wall, drywall), too coarse to track or resource; (5) one lead (negative lag) hides real overlap on the structural path. Priority actions in order: remove the hard constraint driving the negative float and let curtain-wall and roofing logic set the dry-in date; close the six open ends; split the nine long tasks into trackable stages; convert the lead to a clean Finish-to-Start link; and add logic to pull the high-float trades to when they are actually needed. Applying exactly that plan and re-scanning this same file measured 92/100.
Check-by-check breakdown
All 17 checks. Free tier shows pass/fail. The paid report adds the offending task list and fix steps for each failure.
Logic (missing predecessor/successor)
10.9% of tasks missing a predecessor or successor (6/55, threshold: 5%)
Leads (negative lag)
1 relationship with negative lag. None allowed.
Lags (positive lag)
4.3% of relationships use positive lag. Within 5% threshold.
Relationship types (Finish-to-Start)
97.1% of relationships are FS type. Above 90% threshold.
Hard constraints
1.8% of tasks hard-constrained (1/55). Within 5% threshold.
High float
28.0% of tasks with float above 44 days (14/50, threshold: 5%)
Negative float
21 tasks with negative total float. None allowed.
High duration
18.0% of tasks longer than 44 days (9/50, threshold: 5%)
Invalid dates
0 tasks with invalid dates against the data date.
Resources / cost
Schedule is not resource-loaded. Check not applicable.
Missed tasks
Needs a baseline and a data date; not applicable here.
Critical path test
600d injected into an in-progress critical task moved the finish 600d.
Critical Path Length Index (CPLI)
Needs a baseline finish and a data date; not applicable here.
Baseline Execution Index (BEI)
Needs a baseline and a data date; not applicable here.
Logic density
Value check: reported, not scored.
Merge hotspots
No task with 8 or more predecessors found. Value check: reported, not scored.
Insufficient detail
2 tasks exceed 10% of the project span. Value check: reported, not scored.
Beyond the DCMA 14: standards-based checks
Extra structural checks drawn from federal and industry schedule guides. Reported for insight, not counted in the score.
18. Activity data quality
No blank or duplicate names; no milestone/summary conflicts.
19. Dangling logic (open start / finish)
Open-ended tasks whose finish drives nothing, sharper than the missing-logic check.
20. Start-to-Finish relationships
No Start-to-Finish links.
21. Logic on summary tasks
No dependencies attached to summary tasks.
22. Circular logic
No dependency cycles.
23. Redundant logic
No links duplicated by a longer path.
24. Milestone integrity
Milestones are zero-duration with correct relationships.
Checked against 8 standards
Evaluated against the published criteria in:
GanttScore evaluates against these published criteria. It does not certify compliance with any of them.
Schedule risk & confidence
Beyond pass/fail: a Monte Carlo simulation of your logic network estimates how likely the schedule is to finish on time, and which tasks drive the risk.
Schedule Confidence Level
The plan shows 2027-05-14, but with normal duration uncertainty the model puts the 50/50 finish at 2027-06-21 and the 80%-confidence date at 2027-07-19 (about 66 days past plan).
What drives the risk
Tasks whose duration uncertainty most moves the finish date, most sensitive first.
Float concentration
Duration realism (heuristic)
62% of task durations are round numbers (vs ~20% expected), a high clustering signal. Most common duration: 10d (22% of tasks). A heuristic that durations may have been assigned by convention rather than estimated, not proof of padding.
Outliers vs your own schedule
Tasks far outside the norm for their WBS area (robust modified z-score), which fixed thresholds miss.
Schedule Confidence Level: a schedule-only estimate, not a joint cost-schedule confidence level. Durations are sampled from a conservative default spread (triangular 0.95/1.0/1.30 of plan), a disclosed starting basis rather than a per-task calibration.
Look-Ahead Brief
Pick a window from the data date. The brief ranks what must move inside it by how much of the following window it releases.
Anchored at the data date 2026-03-02. Window ends 2026-04-13; the following window ends 2026-05-25. 14 tasks in this window. · 3 longer than 10 days: break these down for field planning
Carry-in risk
Work the plan says should already be done at the data date. The window inherits this risk.
Starts at risk: predecessor not ready
The predecessor's forecast overlaps this task's start. Clear these before the crew arrives.
Where the leverage is
Ranked by schedule leverage: criticality, times the work released into the following window through driving relationships, times convergence exposure.
Driving chain
The path from the top-leverage task. The solid line is the data date; the dashed amber line is the window end.
What this window must deliver
Tasks whose driving successors start in the following window.
Milestones in this window
Method: windows anchor at the schedule's data date. LOE, summary, and completed activities are excluded. Driving relationships, float, and dates come from the file itself; nothing is re-scheduled. Convergence exposure is a heuristic informed by GAO's merge-bias guidance, not a GAO metric.
What a fix looks like in the full report
Two examples shown in full, exactly as the paid report renders them. The full report includes a fix like this for every failed check, named task by task.
Dry-in milestone - Building watertight
Problem: A 'Must Finish On' hard constraint pins the dry-in milestone to a date its predecessors cannot meet, pushing 21 upstream tasks into negative float - the schedule already predicts a late finish.
Fix in Microsoft Project: Open Task Information, go to the Advanced tab, and change the constraint from 'Must Finish On' to 'As Soon As Possible.' Let the curtain-wall and roofing logic drive the dry-in date.
Expected impact: Clears the negative float across the front-end program and restores a logic-driven finish.
Foundation waterproofing & backfill
Problem: This task has no successor, so its completion drives nothing downstream. A slip in backfill would not move any dependent work, which hides real risk and makes float unreliable.
Fix in Microsoft Project: Open the successor that truly depends on it (Exterior framing at grade), add this task as a Finish-to-Start predecessor, or drag a link between the two bars in the Gantt chart.
Expected impact: Closes an open end so a backfill delay flows through to the field work and float becomes trustworthy.
The Green Means Green Guarantee
If a government or owner reviewer flags a finding on a check this report scored green, send us the review comment. We will re-run the analysis, walk you through what happened, and refund the report in full if we got it wrong.
And the 14-day no-hassle refund still applies to every purchase.
The fine print
Applies to the structural checks the report scores, using the thresholds stated in the report. It does not cover findings on checks your contract tailored to different thresholds (the report shows raw counts so you can apply yours), subjective narrative comments, or schedule changes made after the report ran. Refund requests within 90 days of purchase with the reviewer's written comment attached.
Ready to fix your schedule?
Drop your own file and get a free score in about 10 seconds.
Score my schedule freeDownload this sample schedule (.xml) and score it yourself