Darc Atum verifies infrastructure delivery in places where the data arrives as spreadsheets, PDFs and messages. We establish what is actually known about a project, how current it is, and what supports it.
Not decision-gradeNo update in over four months and no named delivery party. The reported status cannot be relied on.
A commitment record tells you what was approved. It rarely tells you what has been built, who is delivering it, or when anyone last confirmed anything on site.
Every activity carries a grade and the specific reasons behind it — missing evidence, no named delivery party, nothing confirmed in months. The grade describes the record, not the contractor.
Progress claims are attached to what supports them: site photographs with their own capture time and location, inspection reports, approvals. Each file is content-hashed, so a substituted file is detectable rather than assumed.
Who claimed what, when, and on whose authority. Field updates arrive as proposals and are applied by a named person — never automatically. The audit trail is the product.
Patterns no single project report shows: one delivery party behind several stalled activities, a shared constraint across a region, records that have quietly gone cold.
We screened every active World Bank-financed infrastructure project in East and West Africa — 147 activities, $34.9bn in commitments — against one question: from the public record alone, can you tell whether it is on track?
disclose no description of what is being built. The public record is a title, a country, a sector and an amount.
disclose no completion date, so there is no horizon against which delivery can be assessed.
regions, screened with identical method on the same day — because a finding that appears in one portfolio is an observation, and one that appears in both is structural.
The method, the exclusions and the limitations are set out in full alongside the findings, so that every figure can be checked against the source. Challenges to any of them are welcome — write to us.
Independent verification of delivery across a financed portfolio, and assessment against the data quality standards used in programme reporting.
A live register of what is progressing, what has stalled, and what nobody has confirmed recently — built from the data the programme already produces.
Monitoring data cleaned, graded and traceable, so that evaluation rests on evidence rather than on recollection.
If you send a portfolio or a programme register, we will tell you what can be established from it and what cannot — before any engagement is discussed.