Sample analysis

A complete analysis, start to finish.

Every section of a JusFund report, on a fictional construction dispute. Party names are replaced by role labels, as a funder sees a case. Research output, not legal or financial advice.

Assessment

Certified payment debt and delay under an EPC contract

Claimant v. First and Second Respondents

A construction-payment and delay dispute under an EPC contract.

Claim as pleaded: €2,450,000; ≈ US$2,675,000 · as at 1 Aug 2026
Funding needed: To be estimated; Assessment in progress
Stage: Pleadings; Statement of claim filed.
Evidence record: 62%; Completeness of the record reviewed
Seat · Institution: Paris · ICC; French law
Time remaining: Not established; The procedural timetable ends before the hearing and does not establish an award date.

Assessment score

C27%46 to 62% rangeMedium confidence

Framework version prediction-rubric-v1 recorded with this assessment.Passed with notes

The parties, record and verification results in this sample are fictional. The score and range illustrate the framework’s assessment, not a calibrated probability of winning. Confidence reflects the completeness of the record and support for the findings. Research output, not legal, financial or investment advice. Per-area weights and weighted scores are omitted from this public sample.

Executive assessment

Band C · assessment score 54.1%

The Claimant seeks EUR 2.45 million under an EPC contract through two legally distinct claims: certified payment debt and delay-related prolongation costs. The debt claim rests on signed certificates and invoices, while the delay claim depends on contractual notices, critical-path causation and proof of resulting loss.

The supplied record gives the debt claim a comparatively direct documentary route. It is materially less complete on concurrency, notice compliance and the methodology supporting the delay valuation. The respondents have not yet supplied their full defence evidence.

Procedure appears properly constituted under the ICC Rules with Paris as the stated seat, but the record does not resolve every party-scope issue or establish an award date. Those gaps affect both jurisdictional confidence and remaining duration.

Recoverability is distinct from merits. The authority appears capable of payment but may raise execution-immunity questions, while the private respondent’s asset position is unverified.

A GBP 900,000 counterclaim could materially reduce or reverse the value of the strongest EUR claim. Without a funding request, budget, complete timetable and dated cross-currency scenarios, the opportunity is not yet economically assessable.

What supports the case

Signed payment certificates support the debt claim.
The arbitration agreement and seat are documented.
Contemporaneous project correspondence supports parts of the delay narrative.

What weighs against it

No statement of defence has been reviewed.
The delay claim lacks a complete critical-path analysis.
Respondent assets and state-immunity issues remain unverified.

Why this band

The certified-payment claim is comparatively strong, but delay allocation, counterclaim exposure and recovery information materially reduce the overall funding picture.

Stage, record and limitations

Current stage

Statement of claim filed. Defence outstanding

Procedural context

The tribunal has been constituted and the first procedural timetable is in place.

Reviewed

EPC contract
Statement of claim
Payment certificates
Selected correspondence

Not reviewed

Statement of defence
Delay expert report
Current asset searches

Likely effect of missing information

The defence and delay analysis could materially change both the merits range and the net-recovery scenarios.

Subject to revision when the defence and expert material are provided.

Assessment score breakdown

Pillar	Score	Unscored
Merits of the Legal Claims	6.2/10
Quality and Sufficiency of Evidence	5.8/10
Quantum and Damages Recoverability	5.5/10	1
Procedural and Jurisdictional Integrity	5.4/10
Enforcement Prospects	4.8/10
Counterparty Risk and Financial Position	4.2/10	1
Tribunal, Seat and Institution	6.0/10	1
Exogenous and Strategic Factors	3.8/10	1

Composite 5.41 / 10Assessment 54.1%Band C

Unscored criteria are excluded and weights renormalised where applicable. All arithmetic performed in versioned code.

Claim-by-claim assessment

Certified payment debt

€1,350,000strong

Against The First Respondent

Contractual payment obligations under clause 14 of the EPC contract, governed by French law.

The payment certificates and invoices provide a comparatively direct route to liability and quantum. The present record indicates that the employer’s representative certified the sums and that the contractual payment period expired. The principal uncertainty is whether the respondents can establish a contractual set-off or a valid challenge to certification.

Binding payment obligationsupported

The EPC contract and signed certificates identify a contractual payment obligation.

Amount due and unpaidsupported

The certificate totals reconcile to the pleaded EUR 1.35 million and no payment record was supplied.

Absence of a valid withholding or set-offunverified

The claimant disputes any right to withhold, but the defence and counterclaim exhibits are not available.

Quantum

The principal sum reconciles to three certificates. Interest basis and calculation require separate verification before a recoverable total can be stated.

Limitation

No apparent limitation issue on the dates reviewed, subject to confirmation of the governing French limitation rule and interruption date.

Best available defences

Set-off against delay damages

Delay and disruption

€1,100,000mixed

Against The First Respondent and The Second Respondent

Employer-risk delay and compensation provisions under clauses 8 and 20 of the EPC contract.

Employer events are documented, but causation, concurrency and notice compliance are not yet established across the full claimed period. Several access restrictions were acknowledged contemporaneously, providing a credible factual foundation. However, the claimant has not supplied the complete programme analysis required to connect each event to critical delay and the pleaded prolongation costs.

Compensable employer-risk eventpartly supported

Access restrictions and late design information are recorded, but responsibility for every pleaded event is disputed.

Contractual notice compliancedisputed

Some notices were issued promptly. Others appear outside the contractual period or lack quantified particulars.

Critical-path causationunverified

No complete windows or time-impact analysis has been reviewed, preventing a reliable concurrency assessment.

Recoverable prolongation losspartly supported

The cost ledger identifies site overhead, but allocation to the compensable period and mitigation remain incomplete.

Quantum

The EUR 1.10 million schedule uses project overhead records, but time allocation, mitigation and concurrency adjustments have not been independently tested.

Limitation

The claim appears timely if the contractual notices are effective. Notice time bars remain a material defence.

Best available defences

Contractor concurrency
Late notice

Procedure and jurisdiction

The arbitration is proceeding under the ICC Rules with Paris recorded as the legal seat. The analysis treats French arbitration law, the law governing the merits and the law of the arbitration agreement as distinct questions.

Arbitration agreement

Clause 24 contains a written ICC arbitration agreement. Formal validity appears supported, although the supplied copy does not resolve execution authority for every named party.

Scope and jurisdiction

The payment and delay claims arise from the EPC contract and appear within the clause. Jurisdiction over the Second Respondent may require a non-signatory or guarantee analysis.

Seat and lex arbitri

Paris is the stated seat, making French arbitration law the procedural framework and French courts the supervisory courts.

Institution and rules

The ICC Rules govern case administration and award scrutiny. The institution does not determine the merits law or enforcement forum.

Governing law of the merits

The EPC contract selects French law for substantive contractual questions.

Law of the arbitration agreement

Not expressly stated in the materials reviewed. A conflicts analysis may be required if validity or scope is contested.

Pre-arbitration requirements

Negotiation and notice steps are referenced, but the complete compliance correspondence has not been supplied.

Limitation and timeliness

Commencement appears within the apparent limitation period. Contractual notice bars remain claim-specific issues.

Current stage and timetable

The statement of claim has been filed and the defence is outstanding. The current procedural order does not establish a final hearing or award date.

Tribunal

The tribunal is constituted. No challenge or conflict issue appears in the supplied record.

Parallel proceedings

No parallel court or arbitral proceeding has been confirmed, but the counterclaim and any local enforcement measures should be checked.

Procedural risks

Possible party-scope challenge concerning the Second Respondent
Incomplete evidence of pre-arbitration compliance
No established award timetable

Recovery by respondent

The First Respondent

mixed

Payment capacity appears stronger than enforceability.

Insolvency status

Not applicable / state entity

Asset position

Operational assets exist, but enforcement immunity has not been analysed.

Enforcement jurisdictions

France

Known assets

Operating bank accounts referenced in France
Revenue-generating transport assets, attachability unverified

Enforcement analysis

Recognition in France should benefit from the New York Convention and the French pro-enforcement framework, subject to any set-aside challenge. Execution requires identification of non-immune commercial assets and cannot be inferred from recognition alone.

Immunity analysis

The contract does not contain a clearly verified waiver of execution immunity. Commercial-use and ownership analysis is required for each proposed asset.

Recovery steps

Obtain the complete contract execution copy and any immunity waiver
Map commercial bank accounts and receivables
Take French enforcement advice before term-sheet approval

Information gaps: Waiver of immunity; Commercial asset mapping.

The Second Respondent

unverified

Recovery cannot presently be underwritten.

Insolvency status

No current insolvency filing identified

Asset position

No reliable current asset evidence in the supplied record.

Enforcement jurisdictions

Switzerland

Enforcement analysis

A Swiss enforcement route may be available if the Second Respondent is bound by the award, but jurisdiction over the company and current attachable assets both remain unverified.

Recovery steps

Order a Swiss corporate and insolvency search
Obtain current audited accounts
Confirm whether a parent guarantee exists

Information gaps: Audited accounts; Asset search; Group guarantee.

Funding economics and counterclaim exposure

Claim value

€2,450,000

Funding needed

Not stated

Remaining duration

Not established

Economic viability

not assessable

Cost recovery

Partial recovery may be available, but allocation is tribunal-dependent.

Duration basis

The procedural timetable ends before the hearing and does not establish an award date.

Funding terms cannot be assessed until the requested budget, remaining timetable and counterclaim scenario are supplied.

Scenario	Gross award	Counterclaim	Net recovery
Debt claim only	EUR 1.35m	GBP 0–0.9m	Cannot aggregate without a dated FX assumption
Both claims succeed	EUR 2.45m	GBP 0–0.9m	Currency-dependent

Reversal risk

The GBP counterclaim may exceed the net value of the strongest EUR claim depending on outcome and exchange rates.

The claim and counterclaim are pleaded in different currencies and are not aggregated without a dated conversion.

Counterclaim

filed

The respondents seek delay liquidated damages and defect remediation costs.

Pleaded

£900,000

Pursuit

High — already filed

Success if pursued

Uncertain pending the defence evidence

A substantial counterclaim could materially reduce or reverse the claimant’s net recovery.

Risk register

R1Counterclaim may reverse net recovery
counterclaimProbability MediumCritical
A live GBP counterclaim could exceed the value of the strongest EUR claim.
Impact: The claimant could succeed on liability but produce little or negative net value.
Mitigation: Model dated, currency-specific scenarios after reviewing the defence.
R2Delay causation is incomplete
evidenceProbability HighHigh
No complete critical-path analysis has been reviewed.
Impact: The delay claim may fail or be substantially reduced.
Mitigation: Obtain and independently review the delay expert model.
R3Recovery route is unverified
enforcementProbability MediumHigh
State-immunity and private-respondent asset issues are unresolved.
Impact: A favourable award may be difficult to monetise.
Mitigation: Commission targeted enforcement and asset diligence.
R4Notice compliance is disputed
procedureProbability MediumMedium
Some delay notices may not meet contractual timing requirements.
Impact: Parts of the delay claim could be barred.
Mitigation: Build a clause-by-clause notice chronology.
R5Budget and duration are not established
cost durationProbability HighMedium
No fundable budget or award timetable has been supplied.
Impact: Return economics cannot be underwritten.
Mitigation: Obtain counsel budget and tribunal timetable.

Document and information gaps

Statement of defence

expected missingHigh impact

The pleaded defences and counterclaim evidence are not yet available.

If provided, likely to move the assessment: either.

Critical-path delay analysis

referenced not providedHigh impact

Causation and concurrency cannot be reliably assessed without it.

If provided, likely to move the assessment: either.

Current asset searches

unverifiedHigh impact

Recoverability remains separate from the merits assessment.

If provided, likely to move the assessment: confidence only.

Detailed legal and factual analysis

1. Merits of the Legal Claims

The certified-payment claim has a clear contractual basis and strong primary documents. The delay claim has a credible factual foundation but remains materially dependent on notice compliance, critical-path causation and the respondents’ best concurrency defence. French law is identified for the merits, but the report does not assume that this resolves the separate law of the arbitration agreement.

The combined merits score therefore reflects materially different claim strengths rather than averaging them in prose.

Governing law and legal framework

French law is expressly selected for the merits and is treated separately from procedural and enforcement law.

Not scored

Elements of each cause of action

Debt elements are substantially supported. Delay causation and notice elements remain disputed.

Not scored

Best available defences

Set-off, contractual time bars and concurrency require full defence evidence.

Not scored

2. Quality and Sufficiency of Evidence

The record contains the core contract, claim pleading, payment certificates and selected contemporaneous correspondence. Those materials provide strong coverage for certified debt. Delay proof is less mature because no complete expert analysis, programme model or defence evidence has been reviewed.

The score also reflects production dependence: important adverse or corroborative material remains controlled by the respondents or future experts.

Documentary coverage

Primary payment documents are available, while the delay chain is incomplete.

Not scored

Witness and expert evidence

No witness statements or complete delay expert report were supplied.

Not scored

Internal consistency

No material contradiction appears in the debt schedule. Delay dates require reconciliation.

Not scored

3. Quantum and Damages Recoverability

EUR 1.35 million in certified debt reconciles to the supporting schedule. The EUR 1.10 million delay component is more assumption-sensitive and lacks a tested allocation of prolongation costs to compensable critical delay. Interest has not been added because the applicable basis, rate and day-count calculation remain to be verified.

The GBP counterclaim is kept separate. No cross-currency net figure is presented without a dated rate.

Principal certainty

Certified debt is arithmetically supported. Delay loss is less certain.

Not scored

Causation and valuation

Delay causation and allocation require expert testing.

Not scored

Net counterclaim-adjusted position

A reliable net value cannot be calculated across EUR and GBP without assumptions and defence evidence.

Not scored

4. Procedural and Jurisdictional Integrity

The written ICC clause, Paris seat and commencement documents support the core arbitral route. The claims against the signatory authority appear within the contractual scope. Jurisdiction over the Second Respondent and the law of the arbitration agreement require further analysis if disputed.

Pre-arbitration compliance is only partly documented, and claim-specific notice time bars remain live.

Arbitration agreement

A written ICC clause is present in the EPC contract.

Not scored

Party and claim scope

Core contract claims are covered. The private respondent’s position is not fully established.

Not scored

Preconditions and limitation

Commencement appears timely, but contractual notices are disputed.

Not scored

5. Enforcement Prospects

Recognition prospects and execution prospects are separated. A Paris-seated ICC award should benefit from the New York Convention in the identified jurisdictions, subject to ordinary refusal and set-aside grounds. However, no current execution plan identifies attachable assets for either respondent.

The state respondent also requires an asset-specific immunity analysis. A recognition-friendly forum does not itself establish recovery.

Recognition framework

France and Switzerland are established enforcement jurisdictions with Convention routes.

Not scored

Identifiable attachable assets

Asset references are incomplete and attachability is unverified.

Not scored

State-immunity exposure

No clearly verified execution-immunity waiver has been produced.

Not scored

6. Counterparty Risk and Financial Position

The authority’s apparent operational scale suggests payment capacity, but that does not answer execution immunity. The Second Respondent has no verified current accounts, guarantee or asset search in the record.

The score is constrained by absence of reliable respondent financial information rather than an affirmative finding of insolvency.

Financial health and liquidity

No current audited financial statements were supplied for the private respondent.

Not scored

Corporate structure and support

A group relationship is referenced but no enforceable guarantee is verified.

Not scored

Pre-award insolvency risk

No filing is identified, but the evidence base is too thin for comfort.

Not scored

7. Tribunal, Seat and Institution

The ICC provides established case administration and award scrutiny, and Paris is a sophisticated arbitration seat. The tribunal is constituted and no challenge is apparent.

Duration and cost cannot be scored confidently because the supplied procedural order does not establish the hearing or award date and no remaining budget was provided.

Institution and seat

ICC administration and the Paris seat are established strengths.

Not scored

Tribunal composition

The tribunal is constituted with no identified challenge, but biographies were not assessed.

Not scored

Cost structure and timetable

No complete budget or award timetable was provided.

Not scored

8. Exogenous and Strategic Factors

The filed counterclaim is the principal strategic risk because it could reverse the economic value of success on the strongest claim. Missing defence, expert and recovery materials may move the assessment in either direction.

No sanctions issue or confirmed parallel proceeding appears in the present record, but these points require continuing diligence rather than an assumption of absence.

Counterclaim dynamics

The filed GBP counterclaim could materially offset the EUR recovery.

Not scored

Settlement dynamics

Certified debt may support settlement leverage, but respondent strategy is unknown.

Not scored

External and parallel-proceeding risk

No complete regulatory or parallel-proceeding search has been supplied.

Not scored

Delay, notice and defects

The construction-specific analysis separates notice compliance, critical-path causation, concurrency and the respondents’ defect case.

Notice compliance is mixed.
Critical-path proof is incomplete.
Defect evidence has not been reviewed.

Confidence

Confidence MediumRange ±8 points (46.1 to 62.1%)

Drivers of uncertainty

Defence outstanding
Delay proof incomplete
Recovery unverified

Grounds for confidence

Core contracts and the statement of claim were reviewed.

Grounds for caution

No defence, expert report or asset search was reviewed.

Additional information request

Statement of defence and counterclaim exhibits

pleadingPriority 1

Needed to assess pleaded defences and counterclaim evidence.

If favourable: Could narrow the counterclaim risk.

If unfavourable: Could materially reduce the merits and net-recovery view.

Funding request, budget and remaining timetable

economicsPriority 1

Needed to assess capital requirement and duration.

If favourable: Could make the opportunity economically assessable.

If unfavourable: Could make the case unattractive despite acceptable merits.

Asset searches and immunity analysis

recoveryPriority 2

Needed to assess monetisation risk.

If favourable: Could improve recovery confidence.

If unfavourable: Could undermine funding viability.

Providing these documents triggers a re-assessment. The report and score are versioned, and the previous assessment is kept.

Methodology and scoring record

Eight pillars are scored on fixed weights recorded with the assessment under framework prediction-rubric-v1. Sub-criterion scores carry written reasons and record citations; criteria the record cannot support are marked Unscored and excluded, with weights renormalised. The composite, percentage and band are computed in versioned code, not by the model.

This fictional sample illustrates the assessment format. Scores describe the framework’s assessment of the record, not a statistically calibrated probability of winning. The range is not a statistical confidence interval; confidence reflects the completeness of the record and support for the findings. Qualitative risk ratings are judgements, not measured probabilities. Research output, not legal, financial or investment advice.

Second-model verification

Passed with notesVerification status recorded with this assessment.

Every assessment is re-read against the underlying record before listing: citations, quotes, figures and the band arithmetic are checked mechanically, and a second AI model from a different provider reviews the reasoning. A pass with notes means points were flagged without changing the band. A fail is surfaced to the claimant before any listing decision.

Citations

41 checked · all in the verified source list

Passed

Quote grounding

17 of 18 quotes traced to the record · not found in the record: “Programme update 11 excerpt”

Passed

Band arithmetic

Composite, percentage and band recomputed in code.

Passed

Report completeness

All required sections present.

Passed

Correction pass

Not applied. 0 findings from the review stand unresolved: read the notes below before any listing decision.

Second-model review

pass with notes

Read the judge's notes in full

The assessment is internally consistent and the band is supported by the scored criteria. Two points were flagged without changing the outcome.

First, the delay-claim narrative relies on programme update 11 for the slippage assertion, but the quoted excerpt could not be located verbatim in the record. Second, the enforcement section could state more clearly that the Swiss route depends on jurisdiction over the Second Respondent being established first.

Notes

Quantum reconciliation for the certified debt claim was independently re-added and matches.
The counterclaim currency warning is correctly carried into every net-recovery scenario.
Consider requesting the notice register early. Three findings depend on it.

Unsupported claims

Programme update 11 excerpt quoted at claim 2, element 3

Verified 5 Aug 2026, 14:20.

Authorities and source register

Verified public and legal sources

ICC Arbitration Rules
iccwbo.orgused in report
Institutional procedure and award scrutiny for the pleaded ICC arbitration.
New York Convention status and text
uncitral.un.org
Recognition framework for potential enforcement jurisdictions.

Record references cited

EPC Contract cl. 14 · Payment schedule annex 4 · Demand dated 12 May 2026 · Payment Certificates 17–19 · Project letters 44, 51 and 68 · Notice register · Programme update 11 · Quantum schedule Q-2 · Statement of Claim §§82–130 · EPC Contract cl. 24 · ICC Request for Arbitration · Procedural Order No. 1 · Counterclaim notice dated 4 July 2026 · EPC Contract cls. 8 and 20 · Relevant record references · Counterclaim notice

What a real assessment involves

For a real assessment, JusFund processes the submitted record, identifies the parties, claims, stage and governing law, and gathers public sources. AI supplies the reasoning across eight areas, versioned code calculates the scores, and a second AI model reviews the result. Verification supports review; it does not guarantee accuracy. The fund seeker receives the assessment and information request before deciding whether to list the case. This fictional sample demonstrates the format; it is not evidence of a completed assessment run.

Read the methodology What funders look for Glossary

Start with a written assessment of your claim.

Upload your arbitration documents to receive findings, key risks and requests for missing information. Where the record supports a score, the assessment includes a band, score, range and confidence. Your first assessment is free.

Run a free analysis Request funder access

JusFund does not fund claims and never provides capital. Funding comes from independent professional funders who make their own decisions and contract directly with you.