THE AUTHORS:<\/strong> On Monday, 13 March 2026, as part of the 2026 edition of Paris Arbitration Week,\u00a0A&O Shearman LLP<\/a>\u00a0hosted a conference titled \u201cNew Frontiers in Delay and Disruption Analysis.\u201d The panel was moderated by Ms\u00a0Sandrina Antohi<\/strong><\/a> (Senior Associate, A&O Shearman) and Ms\u00a0Louise Bouvery<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(Associate, A&O Shearman). The discussion was structured around a series of tailored questions from the moderators, directed to a distinguished panel comprising Mr\u00a0Daniel Garton<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(Partner, A&O Shearman), Mr\u00a0Charles Bouttier<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(Acting Head of Disputes at ADNOC, speaking in his personal capacity, not on behalf of ADNOC), Ms\u00a0V\u00e9ronique Buehrlen<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>KC (Arbitrator and Barrister at Keating Chambers<\/a>), Mr\u00a0He<\/a>r<\/a>v\u00e9 de Trogoff<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>(delay and disruption analysis expert, Partner at Accuracy<\/a>), and Mr\u00a0Alexander Voigt<\/strong> (delay and disruption analysis expert specialised in System Dynamics Modelling, Director of Construction Dynamics Solutions).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The floor was given to Mr de Trogoff at the beginning of the session, who emphasized that new technologies do not change the underlying approach to delay and disruption analysis, but rather the way it is performed. Speaking in the context of his work on the third edition of the Society of Construction Law (\u201cSCL\u201d) Protocol, he identified three reasons for this: (i) the lack of sufficiently developed systems and standards, (ii) limited readiness among key audiences, and (iii) the fact-based nature of delay analysis, which requires rigorous reasoning and evidentiary precision that current probabilistic models cannot provide. In practice, he noted that these tools are useful for handling large datasets and isolating relevant evidence, as well as for document navigation and chronology building, but remain unreliable on issues of criticality and causation. He concluded that their use should be limited to lower-stakes tasks to improve efficiency without undermining analytical rigor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion then turned to Mr Voigt, who addressed whether advances in computing power and large language models could make system dynamics modelling, a rising method since the 1970s, more accessible in delay and disruption analysis and more apt to be presented before arbitral tribunals. He explained that system dynamics model intricate cause-and-effect networks in heavily disrupted projects through mathematical equations, but that adoption remains limited due to their complexity and \u201cblack box\u201d perception. He noted that technological advances have improved usability through faster simulations and better data capture, leading to more reliable models. Finally, while artificial intelligence (\u201cAI<\/strong>\u201d) can assist in processing large datasets and identifying disruptive events, it remains limited in supporting model development and establishing causation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pivoting to the legal perspective, Mr Garton explained that, much like experts, lawyers are using new technologies mainly to process large datasets more efficiently. While this does not change the nature of the analysis, it facilitates previously time-consuming tasks and improves the presentation of evidentiary submissions such as chronologies and graphics. He highlighted, however, that key challenges relate to complexity and trust, with arbitral tribunals often being sceptical of tools that are difficult to explain. He therefore stressed the importance of early introduction during proceedings and educating tribunals, as well as recommending that models be kept simple and transparent to avoid the failure of one element undermining the whole case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Turning to the perspective of an in-house counsel at industry stakeholders, Mr Bouttier addressed the appetite for adopting new technologies, including AI, during both project execution and dispute stages. He noted that industry actors increasingly view AI as a necessity rather than an optional tool, driven primarily by efficiency gains. However, adoption at the dispute preparation stage, or in an ongoing dispute, depends not only on accuracy but also on perceived reliability by users and decision-makers. He further emphasized that parties relying on AI in disputes must play an active role in helping tribunals understand and accept these technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From the arbitrator\u2019s perspective, Ms Buehrlen KC noted limited reliance on these new technologies in arbitration, largely due to the time lag of disputes currently examined by tribunals, which currently still largely stem from projects impacted by Covid. In her experience, AI-generated chronologies and summaries have often proven unreliable, although some research tools can assist in locating key documents during hearings. In relation to delay and disruption analysis, she emphasized that tribunals continue to favour traditional methodologies, particularly the \u201cas-planned versus as-built\u201d method, which are valued for their clarity, transparency, and grounding in factual evidence, especially from on-site witnesses. On the introduction of new methodologies, she stressed the importance of addressing admissibility and methodological issues early, noting that early engagement between experts can help facilitate tribunal acceptance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On whether AI-assisted scheduling tools may increase the risk of invalid baseline programmes, Mr de Trogoff explained that, despite longstanding efforts, such software remains unable to reliably generate coherent baselines, often requiring substantial reworking. From a legal perspective, Mr Garton noted that reliability depends on how these tools are used. Parties must be able to stand behind any outputs, and experts must clearly explain the underlying assumptions in arbitration; otherwise, credibility may be undermined. He also highlighted the potential for earlier integration of such tools during project execution, subject to later review. Mr de Trogoff added that future developments enabling better identification of contractor intent would be particularly valuable, as this currently remains dependent on expert analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Turning to the use of shared project execution datasets by Employers and Contractors during the course of a project, which new technologies might be better at enabling, Mr Bouttier emphasized that the opportunities afforded by access to information outweigh their risks, particularly in improving transparency, and bridging the gap between project reality and its reconstruction in disputes. He suggested that parties may consider agreeing at the contract stage on the tools and data frameworks to be used throughout the project and in any subsequent dispute. Mr Garton acknowledged certain legal risks linked to extensive data availability, including waiver arguments, but agreed that on balance access to reliable shared data is essential to better understand project events and reduce ambiguity. Drawing on his experience advising clients, he also highlighted the importance of structuring data collection from the outset so that it can be effectively used, including through AI tools, both during the project and in any subsequent dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the recognition of system dynamics in delay and disruption protocols, Mr Voigt explained that its inclusion in the SCL Protocol has enhanced its credibility, further supported by guidance such as the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering\u2019s (\u201cAACE International\u201d) recommended practice on model development and reliability. He noted that its greatest potential lies in analysing heavily disrupted projects, particularly when combined with traditional delay methods such as \u201cas-planned versus as-built\u201d, to better demonstrate causation and the impact of disruption. From a delay expert\u2019s perspective, Mr de Trogoff observed that he only encountered system dynamics in one proceeding, and the system was not retained by the tribunal. He added that future editions of the SCL Protocol are likely to remain principles-based rather than prescriptive as to a particular method.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Addressing potential guardrails in arbitration, Mr Bouttier emphasized that the key priority is maintaining trust in the arbitral process, particularly confidence that tribunals will engage with the tools used by the parties while remaining flexible. He doubted the need for formal AI-specific guidelines, noting that issues of data reliability should remain within the tribunal\u2019s discretion. In his view, further prescriptive rules would likely be unnecessary or overly restrictive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concluding the discussion, Ms Buehrlen KC addressed whether arbitrators should proactively upskill in new technologies. She suggested this is unlikely in practice, given time constraints and the breadth of methodologies involved. However, she added that those who also act as counsel are often more familiar with these tools. Ultimately, she stressed that the central issue is not trust but understanding, with arbitrators relying on clear, simplified explanations from counsel to engage effectively with new technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article was originally published in PBA Bulletin on 17 April 2026, as part of a special edition curated by Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a>, in collaboration with Jus Mundi <\/a>and Jus Connect<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Alexa Buathier-Phillips<\/strong>, Master 2 International Economic Law Graduate, Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
As part of Paris Arbitration Week 2026, Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a><\/strong>, in collaboration with Daily Jus<\/a><\/strong> and Jus Mundi<\/a><\/strong>, brings together contributions in a special edition of PBA Bulletin<\/a>,<\/strong> sharing reflections and perspectives from across this year\u2019s events.<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\n