Four framework assessments. A deterministic Monte Carlo engine. Every figure traced to its source row — built for the scrutiny UK infrastructure programmes face.
A representative view of the product. It plays as it scrolls into view — and stays stopped if your device prefers reduced motion.
The tour plays automatically when it scrolls into view, pauses off-screen, and never autoplays when your device prefers reduced motion.
Reference data only. No client content is used on this public site.
Every QSRA we inherit slows down in the same three places. They cost time the people best placed to fix the schedule can't get back.
Risk registers, three‑point estimates, correlation matrices — entered by hand, silently wrong. Errors don't surface until the model misbehaves — and a number you can't trace to its source row is a number you can't defend under IPA- or ONR-grade scrutiny.
Build inputs, export, import, run, re‑export, re‑import. Every round‑trip is a chance to break the chain. By the time you're reporting, the schedule has moved on.
DCMA 14‑point, Acumen Fuse SQI, CIOB PP21, SOMA's own readiness checks. Different analysts apply them differently. Different schemes end up assessed against different bars.
SOMA Risk Studio brings the QSRA assurance workflow into one place. Quality checks run as the team works. The internal Monte Carlo engine independently cross-checks quantitative results alongside the client's approved engine. Every output traces back to its source row.
You still run your approved engine of record — but validated inputs and an independent internal cross-check mean you stop discovering errors on the third round-trip.
A worked example of how Risk Studio presents schedule risk, on demonstration data. Not a client result.
Drag the marker, click the curve, or use ← / → keys.
What is built and what is available are stated separately — the status below is the current position.
Input validation, framework checks, Monte Carlo, S‑curves, tornados, narrative reports.
Read the specVisual XER diagnostics on a time‑scaled Gantt. WBS‑aware. Click any activity → drill into the diagnostic trace.
See it moveCost risk register and internal quantitative modelling for supervised evaluation. Formal validation remains open.
See the moduleCombined schedule and cost risk modelling is not currently offered.
Read the boundaryFuture capability is shaped through governed practitioner evaluation. Tell us what friction you need to examine.
Ask a questionPick the framework your client asks for. Or run all four. Every failed check explains why — and points to the exact row, column, or activity that caused it.
Proprietary internal readiness framework for controlled evaluation.
Fourteen-point schedule assessment published by the US Defense Contract Management Agency.
Chartered Institute of Building's planning protocol.
An internal metric view aligned to a ten-metric Fuse SQI set; not an official Deltek output.
Time-scaled Gantt with hierarchical WBS, critical-path bars, milestone diamonds, open-end markers, dangling outlines, negative-lag flags. Click any activity for the full diagnostic trace — predecessor, successor, every check it failed.
Every run is captured with a cryptographic chain. Re‑run any historic period and get byte‑identical outputs. No drift, no excuses.
If a check failure is accepted within the controlled workflow, the reason is recorded in the audit log for supervised assurance review.
Every output value — every P50, every tornado bar, every band — traces back to the input row, activity ID, or model iteration that produced it.
HMAC-chained audit log records who did what, when, on which scheme. Concurrent edits are file-locked. No phantom changes.
The product is evaluated against reference and anonymised-composite workflows. This public site does not claim general availability and does not identify client schemes.
75 checks across four published frameworks. Badges shown are SOMA‑designed monograms representing each public framework, not the standards bodies' own marks. Compare them →
Send a scheme request — detailed setup follows once we've qualified fit together. Please keep schedules, risk registers, passwords and sensitive scheme detail out of the public form.
Trust & methodology: how we run the maths · how we handle your data · compare vs Safran, @RISK, Acumen · FAQ · what we're designing next
