Method
Identify the decision. Test the evidence. Score the readiness. Convert uncertainty into action. The method is repeatable without pretending readiness can be automated away — AI accelerates intake and evidence synthesis; practitioners make the judgment.
Seven readiness gates
The verdict
- Proceed
- Proceed with conditions
- Hold pending evidence
- Rework decision package
Seven readiness gates, from front-end definition through turnover. Construction work-package readiness — where engineering, procurement, and the construction schedule must align — is where most projects quietly lose the path.
Principles
Evidence before opinion
TPMORA starts with artifacts, decision packages, registers, controls, and interviews, then tests whether the evidence can support the next project decision.
Binary controls plus RAG judgment
Binary checks expose missing controls. RAG scoring turns ambiguous readiness into visible executive signals with labels and actions.
Practitioner calibration
Senior reviewers challenge the scores, calibrate discipline input, and separate data gaps from true execution risk.
Decision outputs
The output is built for gate committees, sponsors, boards, lenders, owners, and program leaders who need the next action.
Evidence model
Binary checks expose missing controls: an artifact, register, or control either exists or it does not. RAG scoring then turns ambiguous readiness into visible executive signals, and senior practitioners calibrate every score before it reaches the decision — AI accelerates intake and evidence synthesis; the judgment stays human.
Status legend
- ReadyEvidence supports the next decision.
- ConditionalProceed only with named conditions.
- At riskThe evidence does not yet support the plan.
- No evidenceThe artifact could not be produced for review.
Evidence heatmap
R Ready · C Conditional · A At risk · — No evidence
T1 Artifact on file · T2 Control verified · T3 Practitioner calibrated · T4 Decision-linked
Illustrative extract. On a live engagement every cell traces to a named artifact in the evidence register.
What we test
- ENG-04Conditional
Engineering completeness
Checks design maturity, open holds, discipline interfaces, and late-change exposure.
- PROC-02At risk
Procurement alignment
Tests long-lead strategy, vendor readiness, expediting, and contract decision points.
- CONST-07Conditional
Constructability
Reviews path of construction, work packaging, constraints, and field execution logic.
- SCH-01At risk
Schedule credibility
Challenges critical path, logic ties, float quality, assumptions, and recovery narratives.
- COST-03Unknown
Cost confidence
Looks for estimate basis, contingency logic, change exposure, and funding decision quality.
- RISK-05At risk
Risk quality
Separates generic risks from owned, quantified, decision-linked project signals.
- COMM-09Conditional
Commissioning readiness
Tests turnover packages, systems completion, startup sequence, and operations handoff.
- GOV-06Ready
Governance and decision rights
Maps who can decide, what evidence they need, and when escalation is required.
- DATA-08Conditional
Data integrity
Assesses whether PMIS, cost, schedule, risk, and document trails reconcile.
Workflow
- 01
Intake
- 02
Evidence review
- 03
Binary controls and RAG scoring
- 04
Practitioner calibration
- 05
Executive scorecard
- 06
Action roadmap
- 07
Optional implementation support
Claim discipline
We do not guarantee project economics, savings, schedule recovery, or downstream success.
We do not certify projects, issue formal ratings, or replace sponsor, board, lender, legal, or owner decision rights.
We do not position AI as autonomous judgment; AI supports intake, synthesis, and evidence preparation.
We do not replace your PMO, PMIS, project controls, or contractor administration.
We will help you determine what evidence matters next. Share the decision, the gate, or the funding moment — the conversation is confidential and framed around your decision, not a sales demo.