# Progress claim exception example, step by step | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/guides/progress-claim-reconciliation-exception-examples
Last updated: 2026-10-19

The records that explain a progress claim exception are the measured work, every claim version, and the certificate or payment schedule with its stated reason, each dated and tied to the same contract line. In the Illustrative case below, a slab milestone was claimed at 100% when site measurement showed 70%. The file is useful because it records the problem, who reduced the amount and why, and the later measurement that released the balance. Remove any of those and the case stops explaining itself.

This worked case is part of the [progress claim reconciliation guide](/guides/workflow-progress-claim-reconciliation), which covers what to inventory before a system migration. Here the job is different: follow one hard case from start to finish so you can recognize similar files at a client.

## The setup: one slab, one line, one month

Illustrative. A 340-person building contractor is the head contractor on a mid-rise residential project for a private developer. The schedule of values breaks the structure into milestones, one of which is "Level 3 slab, complete", worth $180,000. Claims go in monthly; the developer's quantity surveyor assesses each one and the developer issues a payment schedule.

At month-end the contractor's site team reports the slab as done. The commercial team claims the full $180,000 on that line in claim 7, version 1.

The problem: the formwork, reinforcement and first pour were complete, but the second pour had been delayed by weather. Measured against the line's definition, about 70% of the work was in place.

## Case timeline, step by step

Each step names who acted and which record captured it. That pairing, person and record, is what makes this evidence rather than recollection.

| Day | What happened | Who decided | Record that captured it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Claim 7, version 1 submitted: Level 3 slab at 100%, $180,000 | Commercial manager | Claim workbook v1 exported from project controls |
| 3 | Quantity surveyor inspects; second pour not done | Developer's quantity surveyor | Site inspection note with photos and date |
| 4 | Contractor's own measurement confirms 70% in place | Project engineer | Measured quantity record in project controls |
| 9 | Payment schedule certifies $126,000 on the line, reason: "second pour outstanding" | Developer, on the surveyor's advice | Payment schedule PDF with scheduled amount and reason |
| 10 | Commercial manager accepts the reduction; no dispute raised | Commercial manager | Email to the surveyor, filed against claim 7 |
| 11 | Progress invoice raised for the certified amount | Financial controller | ERP invoice referencing claim 7 and the certificate number |
| 24 | Second pour completed and measured | Project engineer | Updated measured quantity, pour record |
| 30 | Claim 8 includes the $54,000 balance on the same line | Commercial manager | Claim workbook, claim 8 |
| 39 | Payment schedule certifies the balance in full | Developer | Payment schedule for claim 8 |

All amounts Illustrative. The certified $126,000 plus the released $54,000 equal the original $180,000 line value.

## Why the payment rules made this file tidy

The day-9 step is not luck. In New South Wales, a respondent must serve a payment schedule within the contract time or 10 business days, whichever is earlier, stating the scheduled amount and the reasons if it is less than the amount claimed. So a reduced certificate under that regime usually arrives with a written reason and a date.

U.S. federal work produces similar structure by a different route. FAR 52.232-5 bases progress payments on estimates of work accomplished that meets contract quality standards, requires each request to be substantiated and certified, and allows up to 10 percent retention when progress is not satisfactory. FAR 52.232-27 makes progress payments due 14 days after a proper payment request is received. Each regime leaves a dated claim, a dated response and a reason. Contract terms vary; this is general information, not legal advice.

## What a thinner file would lose

Compare the same event at a contractor whose records are weaker.

| Record | Strong file (above) | Thin file | What goes missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim version 1 | Kept as an export | Overwritten by version 2 | The original over-claim |
| Measurement | Dated quantity in project controls | Site engineer's personal workbook | Why 70%, not some other figure |
| Certificate reason | Text in the payment schedule | Amount only, keyed into the ERP | The stated cause of the reduction |
| Link to later release | Same line ID in claim 8 | Balance billed as a lump sum | Proof the gap was timing, not a rejected claim |

The thin file still shows that $126,000 was paid. It cannot show why, or that the remaining $54,000 was the same work finished later. That chain, problem to authorized action to checked result, is the part the [exception handling guide](/guides/exception-handling-ai-agents-data) describes as useful for training and evaluating agents, and it is why [reconciliation exceptions](/data-types/reconciliation-exceptions-ai-agent-training-data) are treated as a record type of their own.

## How to recognize similar cases at a client

You do not need to see a claim to know whether a contractor has files like this. Ask the construction accountant or commercial director:

1. Are superseded claim versions kept, or does each revision overwrite the last?
2. Do certificates or payment schedules arrive with written reasons, and where are they filed?
3. Is measured work dated in a system, or in personal workbooks?
4. Does a later claim reference the same schedule of values line when it releases a reduced amount?
5. Roughly how many contracts, over how many years, were run this way?

Three or more yes answers suggest the history can be followed. Write the answers down, not the records. The [records-across-systems map](/guides/progress-claim-reconciliation-records-across-systems) shows which identifiers make the join, and the [general contractor's side of pay application review](/data-types/pay-application-review-process-construction) covers the reverse view.

## Qualification and the questions left open

The commercial director usually sponsors; the CEO decides whether to discuss licensing, with the CFO advising, and counsel reviews head contract confidentiality. The [who-can-license decision tree](/questions/who-can-license-progress-claim-reconciliation-records) walks through those roles. For SourceX, an introduced company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a documented operating history, rights to license and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 90% of the data is in English.

What stays unknown until SourceX reviews it: buyer interest in claim histories, whether client contracts allow reuse, what must be removed, and any offer. SourceX licenses approved business data directly from companies for AI training and evaluation, and manages the agreement, rights review, data preparation, delivery and payout. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting introductions; the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application.

## Next step

> **Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000.** Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.

If a client's claim files read like the strong column above, [register as a partner](/register), check the contractor on [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) and read the [program terms](/terms) before you raise it with the commercial director.

## Sources

- https://www.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-construction/compliance-and-regulation/security-of-payment/responding-to-a-payment-claim
- https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.232-5
- https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.232-27
- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms