Your software project is six months late
Your software project is six months late. The options are fix it, replace the team, cut scope, or kill it, and every person advising you has a stake in one of them.
Before choosing, get one thing that the status reports have not given you: a working demonstration of what exists today, driven by someone on your side, on real data. Not slides. Not a percentage. The thing itself.
What you see decides the path.
If the core works and the delay lives in edges, exceptions and polish, cut scope. Ship the core, defer the rest, and stop paying for perfect.
If the core is unstable and every fix breaks something else, the architecture is wrong, and more time from the same team buys more of the same. That is when replacing the team, or restarting on the working parts, is cheaper than continuing.
If nobody can demonstrate anything on real data after six months of invoices, the project is already dead. Killing it only makes that official and stops the spend.
The trap is the middle option. "Give us three more months" is always available, always plausible, and always the cheapest thing to say in the meeting. It is also how six months late becomes fourteen.
Whatever you decide, decide it against what you saw run, not against what you were told is nearly done.