Where do claim valuations usually fail?

On traceability: figures with no visible route back to a source record invite a discount, however sound the entitlement, the legal right to be paid, sitting above them. The recurring faults are rates asserted rather than sourced from a quote or actual cost, quantities never measured, preliminaries, the time-related site running costs such as supervision and welfare, claimed as a flat percentage instead of a build-up from first principles, the same cost under two heads of claim so it is counted twice, and a single global total that blames every event at once and proves nothing in particular. None are fatal if caught before submission, and all expensive after it, because a decision-maker who catches one soft figure starts doubting the sound ones next to it. The fix is to make every number lead back to a document before the claim goes near the other side.

Picture a bricklaying subcontractor's claim that lands in adjudication at £200,000. On paper it looks strong, but three cracks show under scrutiny. The gang rate is a round figure with no quote or wage record behind it, so the adjudicator has nothing to test it against. The preliminaries are tacked on as a flat 15 percent rather than built up from the actual site costs of supervision and welfare. And a delayed lift appears once under disruption and again under prolongation, counting the same money twice. The adjudicator spots the double count, then doubts the rate and the percentage too, and knocks the award down to £130,000. Each crack was fixable before submission by tying the number to a record; left in, they cost £70,000, which is why traceability is where valuations really win or lose.