The dispute needs setting out item by item and nobody has the format
Each item, each position, each response, in the form a tribunal expects.
What's happening?
The account has hardened into a dispute, and the dispute is really eighty smaller ones: this variation, that contra-charge, this rate, that quantity. Both sides argue them in letters that answer each other loosely or not at all, and every exchange restates the whole war instead of scoring the battles. What is missing is not another letter. It is a format.
A Scott Schedule is that format: the items down the side, each party's position and reasons against each one, the difference in a column of its own. It forces both sides to say something specific about every item, which is exactly what loose correspondence lets them avoid, and it shrinks the argument to the items where the difference is real. Tribunals and adjudicators ask for them because they decide disputes item by item, and a schedule hands them the dispute in the shape they will decide it in.
Building one before anybody orders it is cheap and clarifying: your own case gets organised item by item, the weak entries surface while there is still time to evidence or drop them, and the true size of the disagreement, which is usually smaller than the correspondence suggests, becomes visible for the first time.
The solution
Items, positions and differences, side by side at last.
If you would rather it were done for you, Final Account Dispute is the service that does it.