75 checks. Four frameworks. One source of truth.
Risk Studio presents four framework views against the same approved input. Every finding explains why it fired and points to source context.
Proprietary internal readiness framework for controlled evaluation.
Coverage note — SOMA readiness checks focus on risk-loadability. Run alongside the DCMA 14-point assessment for full schedule-mechanics coverage.Published by the US Defense Contract Management Agency.
Boundary — this implementation is a SOMA assessment view, not an endorsement by the agency.Chartered Institute of Building's planning protocol.
Coverage note — strong on protocol and documentation; quieter on objective numeric thresholds. DCMA and Acumen give you those.Internal metric view aligned to a ten-metric Fuse SQI set.
Boundary — not an official Acumen Fuse report, certification or Deltek-endorsed output.Which framework fits which conversation?
| Framework | Candidate use | Origin | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOMA QSRA Readiness V2.9 | Risk-loadability assessment before Monte Carlo. The most opinionated checks in the toolkit. | SOMA Project Controls — built from delivery experience. | 39 checks across 6 domains |
| DCMA 14-point | Structured schedule-mechanics assessment using configurable thresholds. | US Defense Contract Management Agency. | 14 checks, thresholds configurable |
| CIOB PP21 | Planning-protocol and documentation assessment — the framework UK construction clients most often name. | Chartered Institute of Building. | 12 metrics of planning protocol |
| Acumen Fuse SQI view | Internal ten-metric schedule-quality view; not an official Acumen deliverable. | SOMA implementation aligned to a Fuse metric set. | 10 internal metrics |
Every failure has a story you can tell.
No framework is useful if "the check failed" is all you can say. Risk Studio's drill-down panel explains every check — what it tests, why it matters to a planner, the threshold or rule used, and the exact source row that triggered the failure.
Worked example · DCMA #4 High Float
An illustrative reference schedule shows how a high-float finding can identify activities that need planner review. The figures are illustrative and do not represent a client outcome or performance guarantee.
- Why-this-fails panel — slide-in from right, planner-meaningful explanations.
- Per-check copy + email + open-in-Lens actions — paste a finding straight into a planner email or jump to the activity in Schedule Lens.
- Add-to-agenda — pin findings into a list to work through with the planner.
- Source-row trace — every failure links back to the input that caused it.
See all four views on reference data.
See the checks and the source-row trace on reference data — no client file needed.