As-Planned vs. As-Built (APAB) Analysis:
* A simple APAB compares the planned schedule to the actual schedule to identify deviations.
* It does not involve inserting delaying events or re-forecasting the schedule, which makes it unsuitable for detailed analysis.
Limitations of APAB:
* Unsuitable for complex projects (A).
* Inserting delays is not part of APAB (B).
* Accuracy diminishes for long projects (C) or those requiring granular mid-project analyses (D).
Conclusion: The correct answer is B, as inserting delays into the as-planned schedule is not a feature of simple APAB analysis.

Arrow Diagramming Method (ADM):
* Also known as Activity-on-Arrow (AoA).
* Activities are represented as arrows, and only finish-to-start (FS) relationships are supported.
* ADM has limitations in representing other relationships like start-to-start (SS), finish-to-finish (FF), or start-to-finish (SF).
Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM):
* Known as Activity-on-Node (AoN).
* Activities are represented as nodes (boxes), allowing for flexibility in logic relationships, including FS, SS, FF, and SF.
PSP Study Guide References:
* The PSP Study Guide highlights that PDM has more advanced capabilities compared to ADM, particularly in defining diverse logical relationships.
Conclusion: The correct answer is A, as ADM is restricted to finish-to-start logic, while PDM offers more flexibility.

Critical Path Analysis:
* Critical path activities include proofing, printing, and packaging.
* Delays or baseline adherence does not alter the sequence of critical activities.
Impact Assessment:
* No additional changes occur to the baseline critical path in the given scenario.
Cross-Verification:
* Option A: Incorrect. Assumes two path changes.
* Option B: Incorrect. Incorrect number of changes.
* Option D: Incorrect. Overestimates critical path shifts.
* Option C: Correct. Reflects no critical path changes.