There's a response to @stac on SSC by norskire.
Not positive news, just positive conjecture based on inaccurately described details.
The "high level report" he refers to sounds very much like the final submission, often referred to as "the manual", that the contractor has to hand over to the safety inspectors and which outlines all projected safety procedures based on all installed (and approved) safety installations. This is a very complex document and if it is indeed almost ready to be submitted then this is very good news indeed. When last I spoke to someone from River Park House the current state of play was that the contractor had negotiated modular installation approval so that this final submission would take least time to be assessed and approved, and this had been agreed from Haringey's side too. Ultimate use of the building as a sport stadium depends on this final submission, true, but it represents the final step of a long ongoing process in which vital safety installations have been modularly assessed, approved, certified and proceduralised.
The statement that council inspectors must wait for this "high level report" before they come onsite is flatly false. Modular inspection has already been underway since early December and has visibly progressed in that the club has been allowed to admit large numbers of public into the building on several occasions and in several areas, something they simply could not have done otherwise.
The suggestion that a "Canadian software firm" was they key to the entire remedial work receiving certification is mischievous to say the least, as is the suggestion that this firm redesigned some kind of overall control system for the building's entire safety installations. From what I understood the fire safety monitoring system has been enhanced to increase and intensify zonal monitoring and isolation, especially in the industrial/retail segments of the build, something that would have pin-pointed and highlighted wiring faults and similar under initial testing had it been in place, and would have also taken the entire system closer to overall approval status very much quicker had it been put into use from the beginning. It is this, I reckon, that has given rise to the bulk of the doomsday/sabotage bullcrap that has polluted the twitterverse in recent months.
The statement that the London Fire phalanx inspectors must wait for production of the manual is correct. This is standard legal practice.
The statement that some contractors are now operating at a loss is somewhat true. We are not privy to liability negotiations that have been ongoing since Mace first highlighted the remedial work required before they could authorise a handover. Insurance may cover some of these contracts, perhaps not all, and I doubt we will ever know the full details of how costs incurred by delay were actually itemised and attributed in this case. This is normal, as is the unfortunate fact that loss attribution based on liability will leave some contractors out of pocket or forced to recover costs through means not anticipated in the initial contract.
The suggestion that test events corresponding to use as a general access sport stadium can be held in February seems to correspond with what River Park House also are assuming - and in fact I would be even more optimistic than the Stacey source on this one, as the impression I have received from the council end is that they have already basically approved 99% of the installation and now, like everyone else, are waiting for production of "the manual" to close off their involvement. It is now eight weeks since they were put on notice to expect this submission, a process normally assumed to be around six weeks in these cases. This suggests to me that everyone at the construction end is leaving absolutely nothing to chance once the final submission is made.
The process after submission is very straightforward - basically the proceduralised manual is tested against reality as experienced during full test events and either works or doesn't. Material departures from safety regulations will invalidate the procedures outright. Other exceptions won't necessarily invalidate anything but will more likely lead to tweaks and tasks to be performed within certain times without affecting the building being put into use. Compared to other large builds this one by now in fact has far more of the material requirement already pre-approved before these test events than is the norm.
So Stacey is right to be happy, but a bit naughty in describing why he's suddenly turning all optimistic. It sounds like he's trying to get the latest "ITK" info he's gleaned to fit his previous misinformation that he's published to the masses. But I'm glad he's spreading cheer for once, and not his usual material of choice.
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1089279373180653569
Update from Stacey, who has been giving relatively regular updates on the stadium. I know some don't believe he knows anything that is going on (which is fair enough and I don't know enough about everything to say one way or another) but he has been right about a few things so far so thought I'd post.
Seems a lot more optimistic than he was a few weeks ago, which is good.
Edit: Sorry, not sure how to embed tweets on here.
