Company context
Buildalytic is one of Applied’s owned and operated SaaS businesses. It provides end-to-end certified payroll and labor compliance for public works contractors.
Project BMethodology preview
Buildalytic evaluation repair.
Buildalytic is an Applied-owned SaaS business for end-to-end certified payroll and public works labor compliance. Project B is a planned synthetic evaluation-repair case study based on that workflow. Results will be published only after an authorized case is reproduced and independently reviewed.
Project B is an internal operating case study framework, not a completed incident report or customer case. It uses no real worker, customer, payroll, credential, or production-access data. Applied does not provide legal advice or delegate final compliance decisions to the evaluation. Public case results require authorization, synthetic reconstruction, regression testing, independent review, and approved disclosure.
Operating context.
Uses Buildalytic’s public workflow while separating available evidence from pending work.
Operating workflow
It configures project requirements, collects weekly payroll and supporting records, audits each worker and week, manages corrections and restitution, and prepares filing-ready delivery.
Control model
AI assists classification, extraction, matching, summaries, and follow-up. Versioned deterministic controls apply configured wage and labor rules.
Human boundary
Authorized people retain approval over notices, restitution, certification, submission, and uncertain rule application.
Evaluation unit
One synthetic project, governing source, rule version, worker or record, payroll week, expected decision, and supporting evidence chain.
Primary question
Whether an authorized correction resolves the supported technical cause under comparable conditions without introducing regression.
Current analysis
Operating context and planned method only. No case result, repair result, or production-wide conclusion is currently claimed.
Project B objective
Reproduce an authorized workflow issue without production data, identify its cause, apply the smallest correction, and protect the behavior with regression evidence.
Planned analysis dimensions.
A plausible final answer is insufficient when the rule, version, evidence, calculation, exception path, or authority boundary is wrong.
Rule selection
The applicable federal, state, local, owner, or project source is chosen correctly.
Version and effective date
The decision uses the rule and wage determination applicable to the project and period.
Input completeness
Required payroll, classification, fringe, deduction, apprentice, workforce, and supporting records are present or explicitly missing.
Calculation
Reported amounts, required amounts, hours, overtime, fringe, deductions, and any shortage are reproducible.
Evidence sufficiency
Every released finding identifies the affected record, governing source, calculation, and supporting evidence.
Exception routing
Ambiguous, conflicting, unsupported, or judgment-dependent cases move to the correct human review state.
Approval boundary
The system prepares evidence and recommendations without inventing authorization or making final legal decisions.
Audit record
Source, rule version, input, result, reviewer, correction, proof, approval, and closure remain linked.
Repair sequence.
The method preserves confidentiality, tests competing causes, and makes the release decision reproducible.
Authorize
Define what may be inspected, reproduced, modified, tested, and disclosed. Record the permitted systems and data boundary.
Reconstruct
Create a minimal synthetic case that preserves the technical mechanism without real workers, customers, payrolls, credentials, or confidential rules.
Specify
Freeze the intended behavior, governing source, effective date, input contract, expected decision, evidence requirement, and human boundary.
Reproduce
Demonstrate the observed mismatch under pinned conditions and preserve the raw input, output, calculation, and system state.
Diagnose
Test competing specification, data, environment, evaluator, resource, infrastructure, and implementation explanations.
Correct
Apply the smallest authorized change that addresses the supported cause rather than masking its symptom.
Regress
Run positive, negative, boundary, conflicting-source, missing-evidence, and recurrence cases under comparable conditions.
Review
Require a separate reviewer to reproduce the result, assess impact, confirm disclosure boundaries, and record the release decision.
Planned case record.
The completed artifact will show the whole evidence chain, not merely that the visible issue disappeared.
Before
Pinned version, synthetic input, expected behavior, observed result, failure artifact, and initial classification.
Diagnosis
Competing explanations, tests performed, controlled interventions, supported cause, rejected alternatives, and confidence.
Correction
Changed artifact, reason, scope, reviewer, and proof that the cause, not only the visible symptom, was addressed.
After
Same or explicitly comparable conditions, corrected result, full control set, regression output, and remaining limitations.
Impact
Decision to rerun, regrade, quarantine, mark incomparable, or reuse earlier results with the rationale recorded.
Release
Version, date, independent approval, disclosure scope, owner, monitoring signal, and condition that reopens the case.
Public release gates.
Every gate must resolve to evidence before the methodology preview becomes a case study.
- Documented authorization and disclosure scope
- Synthetic reconstruction with no customer or worker records
- Reproducible mismatch under pinned conditions
- Artifact-supported root cause and rejected alternatives
- Smallest authorized correction with complete regression coverage
- Independent review and explicit historical-impact decision
Current case status.
The workflow and proof standard are defined. Case selection, synthetic reproduction, correction, regression, and independent review have not yet been completed or published.
- Available
- Workflow context, evaluation schema, repair method, and release criteria
- Pending
- Authorized case, reproducible evidence, before-and-after result, reviewer approval, and disclosure decision
- Training claim
- Out of scope until a separate controlled training experiment is completed