IPCRF v1.2 Public Historical Back-Test Evidence Collection - Release 1.0

This record presents Release 1.0 of the IPCRF Version 1.2 Public Historical Back-Test Evidence Collection, a coordinated set of four retrospective case studies evaluating the Integrated Project Controls and Risk Forecasting Framework (IPCRF) using publicly available historical records from major U.S. transit capital projects.

The collection applies the frozen IPCRF Version 1.2 methodology without retrospectively changing thresholds, weights, formulas, or action bands to fit known project outcomes. Each case reconstructs only those indicators that can be supported by contemporaneous public records, while unavailable or definition-incompatible variables are retained as unavailable rather than inferred or fabricated.

The four cases provide complementary evidence. Case Study 1, involving NYCT ADA Station Improvements at 149 St–Grand Concourse and Tremont Av, identified a Critical Finish Slippage signal before the original baseline completion date and before substantially greater schedule deterioration became evident. Case Study 2, involving Dulles Corridor Metrorail Phase 2, demonstrated cross-domain divergence in which cost indicators remained comparatively stable while schedule, change, and contractor-performance indicators showed materially greater stress. Case Study 3, involving East Side Access / Grand Central Madison, produced auditable cost, schedule, float, access, and interface warning signals while also exposing an important Version 1.2 missing-data governance ambiguity that prevented promotion of the available indicator results into formal complete domain scores. Case Study 4, involving the Canarsie Tube / L Project Tunnel Rehabilitation, serves as a favorable-outcome control case and produced predominantly Low or Watch results on the reconstructable indicators rather than severe warnings.

Taken together, the four cases provide an initial real-world empirical evidence base for evaluating the behavior of selected IPCRF indicators across materially different project-delivery conditions. The collection supports examination of indicator sensitivity, cross-domain warning patterns, schedule-recovery margin, constructability and interface constraints, missing-data discipline, and potential discrimination between adverse and favorable outcomes.

This collection does not establish universal predictive validity, calibrated false-positive or false-negative rates, causal accuracy, agency-specific calibration, or full six-domain operational validation of IPCRF. Complete Project Delivery Risk Scores (PDRS) and Forecast Confidence Scores (FCS) are not claimed where the Version 1.2 data-completeness requirements cannot be satisfied using the available public record.

Each case study is preserved as a separate Zenodo research object with its own DOI, technical report, reproducibility materials, machine-readable data, source-provenance documentation, and README. This umbrella record provides the collection-level context and links the four case studies as a single version-controlled historical evidence series.

Axivera Advisory LLC provided research coordination, document control, reproducibility packaging, metadata administration, and dissemination support. The IPCRF methodology, analytical judgments, and conclusions remain attributable to the named author. No transit agency, governmental entity, or other institution is represented as having sponsored, reviewed, validated, or endorsed IPCRF unless explicitly documented.