CAPM Practice: Explain when it is appropriate to use a predictive, plan-based approach

The strongest argument is the physical constraint of sequential construction work combined with upfront requirement definition (architectural/engineering drawings). Physical construction cannot be 'iterated' the same way software can — you cannot build a different foundation in a two-week sprint and tear it down if the product owner changes requirements. These physical and contractual realities make predictive the natural choice.

**Why not B:** While predictive approaches do produce more documentation and are auditable, this is a secondary benefit, not the most compelling reason for choosing predictive over adaptive for construction. The physical constraints of sequential construction work and upfront requirement definition are far more fundamental arguments.

**Why not C:** Team preference is a secondary consideration that should not drive methodology selection. The physical nature of construction work (sequential dependencies, cannot iterate on foundations) is a far more compelling argument for predictive than team preference.

**Why not D:** The claim that adaptive approaches require co-located teams is not universally true, and large construction projects often have co-located teams anyway. This argument misrepresents adaptive approaches and fails to address the fundamental physical constraints that make predictive the natural fit.