Which method is described by MIP 3.2?

The correct method described by MIP 3.2 is the Collapsed As-Built or "But-for" method. This technique is often used to analyze project delays or schedule impacts resulting from various changes or disruptions throughout the project lifecycle. The "but-for" concept essentially means assessing what the project timeline would have looked like had the specific delays not occurred, allowing for a clear understanding of how these delays impacted the overall project schedule.

This method is particularly valuable for claims analysis in construction and project management, where understanding the effect of specific events on project timelines is crucial for determining liability and compensation. By simulating the project's timeline as if the delaying events had not occurred, practitioners can isolate the impact of those events and develop a more accurate picture of the project schedule.

In contrast, other methods mentioned do not align with the specifics outlined in MIP 3.2. For instance, Retrospective Windows Analysis typically focuses on reviewing completed periods of time to assess performance, while the Critical Path Method is a widely used scheduling technique that involves mapping dependencies and identifying the longest sequence of activities. Performance Evaluation Method, while related to assessing how the project is progressing, does not specifically refer to the collapsed as-built analysis.