## 4 Presentation and Discussion of Findings
### Validation Using Holdout Samples  
The validation of samples was conducted to finally train the model using the previously predicted outcomes of levels 1 and 2. This phase also represents the final construction stages in a project. The parameters for the input variables, which are all 135 samples are divided accordingly:  
Table 7 displays the model summary for the validation phase just as Figure 4 displays the connections between the nodes and variables. They are: training 50%, testing 30%, holdout sample 20% with MPL of the previous predictive value of the professionals. There are two hidden layers in the validation phase. The sum of square error for the training and testing variables are 4.331 and 5.283, respectively. The percentage of incorrect predictions for training, testing and holdout samples is 7.90%, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Level 1**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Level 2**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Importance**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Standardised Importance**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Rank**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Importance**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Normalised Importance**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Rank**} \\  & & & & & & & **Importance** \\ \hline MONMC & 0.087 & 100.00\% & 1 & HDATA & 0.126 & 100.00\% & 1 \\ MONOV & 0.086 & 98.40\% & 2 & PampL & 0.113 & 89.80\% & 2 \\ MONEC & 0.076 & 87.60\% & 3 & COSTFOR & 0.089 & 70.10\% & 3 \\ INCMILE & 0.071 & 82.00\% & 4 & INCMILE & 0.079 & 62.80\% & 4 \\ VARMAN & 0.069 & 79.40\% & 5 & CFLOW & 0.079 & 62.20\% & 5 \\ COSTR & 0.064 & 73.10\% & 6 & MONOV & 0.073 & 57.80\% & 6 \\ COMPUNI & 0.063 & 72.50\% & 7 & VARMAN & 0.061 & 48.50\% & 7 \\ WORKBUD & 0.062 & 71.40\% & 8 & MONEC & 0.06 & 47.40\% & 8 \\ CFLOW & 0.062 & 71.30\% & 9 & COSTR & 0.055 & 43.90\% & 9 \\ IDCOV & 0.061 & 70.50\% & 10 & COMPUNI & 0.053 & 42.10\% & 10 \\ INTERIMV & 0.05 & 57.70\% & 11 & MONMC & 0.047 & 36.90\% & 11 \\ HDATA & 0.05 & 56.80\% & 12 & INTERIMV & 0.038 & 30.30\% & 12 \\ FORCOMP & 0.049 & 56.00\% & 13 & TCACT & 0.035 & 27.70\% & 13 \\ COSTFOR & 0.047 & 54.50\% & 14 & MONLC & 0.026 & 20.90\% & 14 \\ TCACT & 0.039 & 44.50\% & 15 & WORKBUD & 0.02 & 16.20\% & 15 \\ MONLC & 0.032 & 36.50\% & 16 & IDCOV & 0.02 & 15.70\% & 16 \\ SIMP & 0.03 & 34.80\% & 17 & SIMP & 0.014 & 11.30\% & 17 \\  & & & FORCOMP & 0.011 & 8.70\% & 18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} (Source: Authors’ compilation, 2020).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Independent variable importance for 2 training sessions (noted: Level 1 has PampL as a partition variable in the training set). 17.10% and 10.70% respectively. The values of the sum of squares error and incorrect predictions are considerably low enough for the validation phase of this study. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Activity** & **Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Training} & Sum of Squares Error & 4.331 \\  & Percent Incorrect Predictions & 7.90\% \\  & Stopping Rule Used & 1 consecutive step(s) with no decrease in error \\  & Training Time & 00:00.02 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Testing} & Sum of Squares Error & 5.283 \\  & Percent Incorrect Predictions & 17.10\% \\ \hline Holdout & Percent Incorrect Predictions & 10.70\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} (Source: Authors’ compilation, 2020).  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Validation model summary. Figure 4: Validated multilayer perception. Figure 4 displays the connections between the variables and variables. The model output selected 47.4% of the training sample, 29.6% of testing and 23.0% of the holdout samples. Table 8 indicates the values. Site meetings and planning activities (SIMP) have a connection with H(1:1). This is consistent with monitoring equipment cost (MONEC) and the compounding unit (COMPUNI). Hidden layer H(1:2) is strongly associated with H(2:1). H(2:1) has a strong classification with the CPM. The classification of the predicted output layer associates the SIMP; MONEC; and COMPUNI to the CPM.