Comparing two cost-to-complete files is one step in a larger review. A useful workflow also establishes why a figure changed, who can explain it, and where the accepted change needs to go next.
This is an illustrative application of Tetra’s operating-model and data-model approach. The details depend on the contractor’s actual process.
Establish a valid comparison
Agree the versions and reporting periods being compared. Define how jobs and cost codes match between them. Make missing or unmatched records visible before interpreting the movement.
Keep the original inputs available so the comparison can be traced back to its source.
Attach context and ownership
For each item requiring review, capture the changed assumption, supporting context, responsible owner, and disposition. Decide how the team distinguishes an unresolved question from an approved change.
AI can help prepare comparisons and organize questions. The responsible project and finance owners retain estimating judgment and acceptance of the assumptions.
Close the loop with the forecast
Document how an accepted CTC update reaches the relevant reporting and forecast workflows. The handoff needs a sender, recipient, accepted version, and deadline.
A complete review should not leave the next team guessing whether the change has already been included.
Put the strategy into practice
Baseline traces the current comparison and measures its delays. Blueprint fixes handoffs and definitions, then specifies the role of AI, checks, and reviewers. Build makes the workflow operational and transfers the ability to maintain it.