The Sentient PMO
Organize context and examine evidence with AI assistance while keeping judgment and authority with people.
Explore the book →← Applied Work
Project Mesquite / Synthetic case study · In progress
Risk, schedule and capital decisions.
Project Mesquite applies the questions in Michael Kaplan’s books to a fictional 56 MW modular data-center commitment. It connects factory production, site construction, long-lead procurement, utility power and commissioning to the dates, financial exposure and decisions leadership must own.
Illustrative work, not a client engagement. All companies, people, project dates, costs and outcomes are fictional or synthetic. The case demonstrates an analytical workflow under stated assumptions; it does not establish actual project performance or savings.
The governing question
Does the evidence support signing on these terms?
The fictional builder is considering a $560 million lump-sum contract for two 28 MW halls. The estimate contains a $519 million base, $31 million contingency and $10 million margin. Factory output and site readiness must converge before energization and commissioning.
An expedited procurement scenario restores a small amount of deterministic margin against the hall completion dates. The risk analysis then tests how that plan behaves when durations vary and uncertain events occur.
The case’s current recommendation is to negotiate the dates, design-decision conditions and commercial terms, then analyze the agreed package before signing. The Project Director and Finance own the commercial decision and retained risk.
Exhibit 01 / Synthetic SB-1202 scenario
A recovered date still needs a confidence test.
The deterministic calculation meets both hall dates. With duration uncertainty and risk events, the modeled P80 dates are substantially later. P80 is the date by which 80% of simulated outcomes finish under the stated model assumptions.
Hall A / Ready for service
- Contract date
- November 30, 2027
- Deterministic scenario
- November 23, 2027
- Risk-adjusted P80
- February 18, 2028
Hall B / Ready for service
- Contract date
- December 31, 2027
- Deterministic scenario
- December 27, 2027
- Risk-adjusted P80
- May 26, 2028
Contingency in the estimate
$31 million
Modeled total risk cost / P80
$90.3 million
The modeled $59.3 million gap is a synthetic exposure comparison, not an observed loss or a final pricing recommendation. Total risk cost includes time-related cost growth against the priced duration, direct event costs, capped delay liquidated damages and the expedite premium. It is additional exposure, not the total project cost.
Model basis and limits
The model uses a 101-activity network with 83 tasks, multiple calendars, duration distributions, correlated inputs and 17 discrete event rows. A critical-path forward pass is recalculated for each iteration. Python analysis and version-controlled CSV records support a schedule structured for Primavera P6 import.
Inputs and interview read-backs are synthetic role-play records. Reproducibility and input checks establish internal consistency; predictive accuracy on real projects and complete independent Primavera validation have not been established. Results depend on elicited ranges, correlations, simplified cost rates and the modeled responses.
This exhibit uses the main SB-1202 run only. Contract-allocation sensitivity figures are excluded while physical completion, compensable delay and contractor exposure are separated more explicitly. Contractual relief can alter liability while the physical delay remains.
Reference snapshot: case revision 6436a66, reviewed October 28, 2026. The November 2026 and 2027–2028 dates belong to the fictional project chronology. This is a fixed case exhibit, not a live forecast.
Evidence to decision
A record others can challenge and reconstruct.
The work combines established risk-analysis methods with a traceable decision process. GitHub preserves changes to records and assumptions; Python makes the analysis repeatable. Structured AI-assisted work supports preparation and review, with human judgment and authorization retained.
- 01
Define the commitment
Establish objectives, contract dates, funding assumptions, risk ownership, escalation thresholds and gate criteria.
Charter · Risk framework · Stage gates
- 02
Examine the delivery logic
Connect procurement, factory and site activities to energization, commissioning and readiness. Preserve the baseline while testing recovery scenarios.
Logic-linked schedule · Calendars · Scenario change records
- 03
Challenge the inputs
Use structured role-play interviews and read-backs to test ranges, causes, correlations and potential double counting. Retain corrections and their reasons.
Synthetic interview records · Input validation log
- 04
Quantify and compare
Run schedule uncertainty and discrete risk events through the network. Examine milestone confidence, time-related costs, direct impacts and delay damages.
Monte Carlo results · Sensitivities · Contingency comparison
- 05
Prepare the decision
Translate the findings into negotiation conditions, response options, named authority and the evidence needed before signing.
Executive memo · Role-play mandate · Decision log
The books in practice
Testing the evidence behind a capital commitment.
Volume I: Governing the Funded Belief
Test whether the evidence still supports the proposed commitment of capital, dates and delivery obligations.
Explore the book →Volume II: The Forensic Governance Operating System
Carry assumptions, corrections, chronology and decision ownership through a traceable evidence-to-decision process.
Explore the book →Mesquite extends a delivery record spanning integrated scheduling, engineering progress, field execution and project financial controls. Those engagements establish Michael’s experience; this synthetic case makes his current approach to risk and decision preparation inspectable.
See the delivery and leadership record →Current stage / Negotiation mandate
The next test is whether the response changes the risk.
The role-play leadership decision establishes negotiation conditions and requires a rerun of the agreed package before signing. That decision has been recorded; the complete response-verification cycle remains in development.
The next stages are to record agreed terms, analyze the actual package, define the evidence expected from each response and reassess the residual exposure. Corrections to assumptions, physical mitigation and contractual risk allocation must remain distinguishable.
Closing an action is one piece of evidence. Demonstrating effectiveness requires a reasoned connection between the completed response, changed conditions and the remaining risk. A synthetic continuation will illustrate that method; it will not establish realized client savings.
Current professional focus
Program delivery, project controls and risk leadership.
Michael is seeking full-time leadership opportunities where integrated planning, field understanding, financial controls and independent risk judgment support consequential delivery decisions.
Discuss a full-time role →