Project Ledger
6PM Tech
Open interactive demo

The record already holds the answer. Nobody can read all of it.

Project Ledger explores a simple idea: connect the documents a construction project already produces, so the record can be understood, questioned, and checked against its own sources.

Nothing is missing. That's what makes it hard.

Someone sent the email. Someone filed the RFI. The superintendent wrote the daily report, the engineer answered, the minutes were taken. Every piece exists.

Understanding what actually happened means holding all of it at once — across email, drawings, schedules, reports and change orders, filed in four systems by a dozen people over eighteen months.

The same twelve documents, two ways Conceptual illustration

  • OutlookRE: RE: FWD: proof roll failed — phase 1
  • SharePointRFI-053_subgrade_FINAL.pdf
  • DriveRFI-053_subgrade_FINAL (1).pdf
  • SharePointExhibit F - qualifications.pdf
  • PhoneIMG_2208.jpg
  • DriveDaily Report 05-18-26.pdf
  • SharePointPCO-021 (rejected).pdf
  • EmailScan_20260604_testpits.pdf
  • Drivetopsoil strip survey 4-28.xlsx
  • DriveSchedule Update 004.xer
  • EmailPayApp_05_MARCH.pdf
  • SharePointHalstead Phase II Draft - Prelim Geotech.pdf
  • Drivemilestone schedule 02-10-26.mpp
  • …and 144 more on this project

Four systems, no shared order, two copies of the same RFI. Answering one question means opening each file and holding the result in your head.

Sequence and payment Conceptual illustration

You approve the invoice. You can't see the sequence behind it.

A contract sets the order the work happens in, and payment follows that order. When work runs out of sequence, the invoice doesn't say so. It shows a line item and a percentage.

MONTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 today 1 · Site & utilities 60% — utilities unfinished 2 · Foundations not started 3 · Structural frame not started 4 · Building envelope not started 5 · Interior fit-out billed — 8 weeks early Contract sequence Work performed Incomplete Out of sequence
  1. 1 · Site & utilitiesContract window: months 1–2.At month 4: 60% complete; utilities unfinished.
  2. 2 · FoundationsContract window: months 2–3.At month 4: not started.
  3. 3 · Structural frameContract window: months 3–4.At month 4: not started.
  4. 4 · Building envelopeContract window: months 4–5.At month 4: not started.
  5. 5 · Interior fit-out — out of sequenceContract window: months 5–6.Performed in months 3–4 and billed — eight weeks early.
The same four months, read two ways: the order the contract requires, against the order the records show. Everything behind milestone 1 has stalled, while milestone 5 moved forward and was invoiced.

What reaches you

Pay Application #4 · March
Line 5 — Interior fit-out 18% $412,000
Certified for payment

What the record shows

  • Milestone 1 is 60% complete. The underground utilities everything downstream depends on are unfinished.
  • Milestones 2, 3 and 4 have not started. Four months in, three of five milestones have no work against them.
  • The fit-out on this invoice began eight weeks ahead of its contract window — and it is the line you are being asked to pay.

Resequencing happens on every job. This may be a sound field decision — or it may be work billed ahead of the milestone that funds it. From the invoice alone you cannot tell which, and the invoice is the only part of this that reaches you.

ASK “Is the work on this payment application in contract sequence?”

The intended capability is to read the milestone schedule, daily reports, inspection records and payment applications together, with documents behind the answer. This sequence analysis is conceptual; the demo does not perform it.

Traceability

Every conclusion leads back to a document.

In the demo, select a prepared question about the delay and read an answer with numbered citations. Open a citation to inspect the supporting fictional record — its content, source, date and sender.

  1. 01You select a question in plain language — what caused the delay, when was the owner notified, what did this cost.
  2. 02You read a prepared answer — the sequence the fictional record documents, with numbered source citations.
  3. 03You open the supporting record — the specific document behind that specific statement.
  4. 04You inspect the source details — where the fictional record came from, who sent it, and what it says. Live original-file access is not connected.
Potential factual discrepancy

Two records. Two different accounts. One thing that's easy to miss.

From the demo you're about to open — two exhibits to the same contract, printed a day apart and signed together.

Exhibit FBid qualifications · 10 Feb 2026

“Contractor has reviewed the provided Phase II Environmental Site Assessment as reference only, and no Geotechnical Report was received.”

Signed by the contractor with the agreement

Exhibit DDocuments list · 9 Feb 2026

“Halstead Commons Phase II Draft – Preliminary Geotechnical Report.pdf” — uploaded to the project repository on 9 December 2025 at 2:18 pm.

Printed the day before signing

These may not contradict each other at all. Exhibit F says no geotechnical report was received; Exhibit D lists a preliminary draft in the repository. The record does not establish whether it reached the estimator or whether that draft satisfies the qualification’s reference to a geotechnical report. Availability, receipt and draft status remain separate, unresolved questions.

Project Ledger surfaces the discrepancy. It does not invent a resolution. What it means is your call, and your advisors'.

Halstead Commons Ask Project Ledger: Was a geotechnical report available before the GMP was set? The direct answer includes numbered citations and compares the contractor’s bid qualifications, project documents list and owner response. The potential factual discrepancy is marked unresolved.
The same discrepancy in the working demo: a prepared answer, inline citations and competing source records, with the question left unresolved. Actual product capture · Simulated data. View full-size screenshot →

Boundaries

Three things it deliberately doesn't do.

It doesn't replace your systems.

The intended model connects records from existing systems, such as SharePoint, Google Drive and project email, or direct uploads. In this demo, connections and uploads are simulated; no external systems are connected.

It doesn't decide who is right.

It shows what the record establishes, the positions each party has taken, and the evidence behind them — including evidence that weakens a position. Entitlement and liability stay with the people qualified to judge them.

It doesn't ask for your trust.

The prepared demo answers link material statements to supporting records and identify important gaps and uncertainties. They illustrate source grounding; the demo does not generate new answers.

Where it helps

The project you're in, and the ones after it.

The project in front of you

Make sense of a record you already have

The goal is to make an existing project record easier to review through connected issues, chronology and conflicting accounts. The demo lets you explore those relationships in a prepared fictional record.

Useful heading into a negotiation or a claim — and just as useful for finishing the job with a clear view of where things stand.

Every project after it

Start with the record already connected

The longer-term concept is to connect records as a project unfolds, helping teams notice emerging issues while there is still time to act.

Continuous ingestion and automatic organization are intended capabilities, not working features of this prototype. Time and cost savings have not been validated.

See it working

Open the interactive demo.

An interactive demo of Halstead Commons Sitework — a fictional mixed-use sitework package in dispute over unsuitable subgrade found during mass grading. Every company, person and document in it is invented.

$17.4M
Project value
156
Simulated records
61
Days forecast variance
$739K
Withheld

The demo exposes a curated selection of the 156 simulated records. The 61-day forecast variance includes overlapping causes; it is not an allocation of responsibility.

Take the 90-second tour first.

  1. 01The tour walks the whole path — dashboard, records, evidence, issue, chronology, answer.
  2. 02When it finishes, click anything. Open a citation, filter the timeline, read a record.
  3. 03Then tell us where this would have saved you the most time on a real project.
Open interactive demo

Demo · Simulated data · about 10 minutes · best on a desktop or tablet