JCT/NEC: Use of JCT Provision Sums Vs NEC3 Compensation Events, is there any real advantage?

When dealing with a refurbishment which will include the repair of a significant measured area of brickwork of which the degree of repair will be unknown until opening up works can be completed during construction, is there any real advantage to using Provisional Sum in under a JCT SBC over simply dealing with the unknown under a Change to the Works Information under NEC3?
I would be assuming that as we know the relative nature of the works, how they will be carried out and the area that the Provision Sum would be classed as Defined.

I’m not clear if you’re asking as a contractor or client therefore am not sure on who’s side the advantage is supposed to fall on?

Still ignoring this, under JCT the Contractor is not entitled to an extension of time when a defined provisional sum is expended, so in effect the Contractor carries some time risk associated with work which they only know the basic details of at tender stage.

Under NEC provisional sum is not a recognised concept and as such there are no rules governing them. The Employer should hold money in their budget until the work can be defined sufficiently to be able to give the Contractor an instruction which they will then submit a cost and time quotation for.

So you could argue that JCT favours the Employer and NEC the Contractor, however personally I find the JCT approach to be outdated and the NEC one a much more sensible risk allocation to have in a construction contract.