Disaster Management Centre

1. Prioritize districts with verified disaster impactsDEC-DP16-001 · Affected households

Check the households with recorded disaster impacts against the matching event frame.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Reported affected-household share [%]	Households without a recorded impact [households]	Unknown impact status [households]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — affected households / 2025	65	30	5	Confirm unknown impact status and review the supporting impact records
Rattota — affected households / 2025	85	15	0	Review the supporting impact records
Panvila — affected households / 2025	45	40	15	Confirm unknown impact status and review the supporting impact records

What the selected record shows. 65 of 100 households have recorded impacts; 30 have no recorded impact; 5 have unknown impact status.

Next step. Confirm unknown impact status and review the supporting impact records. Prepare coverage follow-up in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Unknown impact status is separate from households without a recorded impact.

Example chart

Reported affected-household share — fictional 2025 examples

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Households in the exposed event frame	100	households
Households with reported verified impacts in this example	65	households
Households whose impact status is unknown	5	households

Reported affected share = 100 × distinct affected households / the matching exposed household frame. Keep unknown impact status separate. This fictional register is not an official disaster result.

Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures.

Other required records: Event ID; affected households; exposed household frame; location; assessment date.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

1. Direct sector assessments where losses are greatestDEC-DP16-002 · Damage and loss

Try this decision

Compare recorded asset damage and interruption losses for the same event.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Estimated asset damage [LKR]	Interrupted flow value [LKR/period]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — damage and loss / 2025	1,800,000	250,000	Review cost components and comparable verified outputs
Rattota — damage and loss / 2025	1,800,000	250,000	Review cost components and comparable verified outputs
Panvila — damage and loss / 2025	1,800,000	250,000	Review cost components and comparable verified outputs

What the selected record shows. Estimated asset damage: 1,800,000 LKR.

Next step. Review cost components and comparable verified outputs. Prepare cost comparison in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Stocks damaged and flows interrupted must not be added without compatible valuation rules.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Damaged asset quantity	12	asset units
Repair/replacement cost per matching unit	150,000	LKR/unit
Interrupted service/production flow value	250,000	LKR/period
Price year and flow interruption period	Sample2025 prices / stated interruption period

Asset quantity × replacement/repair unit cost. Show interrupted economic flows separately; no automatic damage+flow total or double counting.

An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable.

Other required records: Event; damaged assets; repair values; disrupted flows; sector; price year.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

3. Address safe-centre capacity and accessibility gapsDEC-DP16-003 · Safe centres

Try this decision

Compare reported safe-centre capacity with demand in the same service window.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Usable capacity minus demand [places]	Usable capacity [places]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — safe centres / 2025	-15	135	Review capacity shortfall
Rattota — safe centres / 2025	-15	135	Review capacity shortfall
Panvila — safe centres / 2025	-15	135	Review capacity shortfall

What the selected record shows. Usable capacity minus demand: -15 places. Review capacity shortfall.

Next step. Review capacity shortfall. Prepare capacity review in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Capacity alone does not establish safe access, accessibility or suitability.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Demand in the selected period	150	places
Rated capacity for that period	180	places
Unavailable or restricted capacity	45	places

Usable capacity = rated capacity − documented unavailable capacity. Surplus/shortfall = usable − matching demand.

Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint.

Other required records: Centre capacity; current occupants; vulnerable needs; water; sanitation; access.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Reference map image

Matale District location in Sri Lanka — published static reference map — **Reference map image — not live.** Matale District location in Sri Lanka. Map date: 2012-07-30. Uwe Dedering; uploaded by BishkekRocks · CC BY-SA 3.0. Detail crop only; no features added. The example areas are supplied records, not measurements from this image.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

4. Target documented recovery needs lacking confirmed fundingDEC-DP16-004 · Recovery funding

Try this decision

Check the gap between documented recovery needs and confirmed funding.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Unfunded need [LKR]	Committed but not disbursed [LKR]	Disbursed but not spent [LKR]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — recovery funding / 2025	850,000	1,010,000	440,000	Review unfunded need
Rattota — recovery funding / 2025	850,000	1,010,000	440,000	Review unfunded need
Panvila — recovery funding / 2025	850,000	1,010,000	440,000	Review unfunded need

What the selected record shows. Unfunded need: 850,000 LKR. Review unfunded need.

Next step. Review unfunded need. Prepare funding review in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

A reported gap does not commit funds or establish eligibility.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Approved financing need	3,500,000	LKR
Confirmed commitments	2,650,000	LKR
Funds actually disbursed	1,640,000	LKR
Verified eligible expenditure	1,200,000	LKR

Unfunded = need − commitments. Undisbursed = commitments − disbursements. Unspent = disbursements − eligible spending.

Keep commitments, cash receipts, expenditure and verified physical outputs separate. Negative balances flag overcommitment or reconciliation; no automatic accounting adjustment.

Other required records: Recovery requirement; approved allocations; commitments; disbursements; project scope.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

2. Identify communities missing authorized warningsDEC-DP16-005 · Warning dissemination

Try this decision

Identify communities with no confirmed receipt of an authorised warning.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Verified coverage [%]	Known uncovered [households]	Unknown coverage [households]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — warning dissemination / 2025	65	30	5	Check the records behind the uncovered and unknown groups
Rattota — warning dissemination / 2025	85	15	0	Check the records behind the uncovered and unknown groups
Panvila — warning dissemination / 2025	45	40	15	Check the records behind the uncovered and unknown groups

What the selected record shows. 30 households are known to be uncovered; 5 have unknown coverage. 65% are confirmed covered.

Next step. Check the records behind the uncovered and unknown groups. Prepare coverage follow-up in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Recorded dissemination is not proof that people received or understood the warning.

Example chart

Verified coverage — fictional 2025 examples

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Required eligible frame	100	households
Distinct members of that frame covered	65	households
Frame members with unknown coverage	5	households

100 × distinct covered eligible units / eligible frame. Known uncovered = frame − covered − unknown.

Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures.

Other required records: Official warning ID; target area; delivery channels; acknowledgements; recipient frame.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

6. Compare feasible evacuation routes and shelter accessDEC-DP16-006 · Evacuation planning

Try this decision

Compare supplied evacuation journeys and their access conditions.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Supplied journey duration [minutes]	Capacity minus demand [units]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — evacuation planning / 2025	65	3	Obtain the missing evidence listed below
Rattota — evacuation planning / 2025	65	3	Obtain the missing evidence listed below
Panvila — evacuation planning / 2025	65	3	Obtain the missing evidence listed below

What the selected record shows. The supplied journey is 24 km and 65 minutes. Usable capacity is 18 against 15 required in the stated service units. Access and operating conditions: Unresolved.

Next step. Obtain the missing evidence listed below. Prepare evidence request in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Information still needed

Access, closures and operating conditions: Unresolved

The prototype calculates no route and establishes no safe evacuation path.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey	24	km
Supplied journey duration; not calculated here	65	minutes
Usable vehicle/team capacity	18	units
Required capacity	15	units
Access, closures and operating conditions	Unresolved
Operating and service window	Sample operating window

Compare supplied route times/distances, usable capacity and documented access/window constraints. Display feasible candidates; no route optimization is implied.

Straight-line distance is not a road route. Example routes establish no current road status, emergency clearance or safe evacuation instruction. This decision view compares supplied journeys. It does not calculate a route or run a coordinate-based analysis.

Other required records: Hazard scenario; verified road network; closures; shelters; travel times; capacity.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

3. Allocate response resources against assessed needsDEC-DP16-007 · Emergency resources

Try this decision

Compare usable response resources with the stated event workload.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Usable capacity minus demand [staff hours]	Usable capacity [staff hours]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — emergency resources / 2025	-15	135	Review capacity shortfall
Rattota — emergency resources / 2025	-15	135	Review capacity shortfall
Panvila — emergency resources / 2025	-15	135	Review capacity shortfall

What the selected record shows. Usable capacity minus demand: -15 staff hours. Review capacity shortfall.

Next step. Review capacity shortfall. Prepare capacity review in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Resource counts alone do not establish skills, deployment authority or readiness.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Demand in the selected period	150	staff hours
Rated capacity for that period	180	staff hours
Unavailable or restricted capacity	45	staff hours

Usable capacity = rated capacity − documented unavailable capacity. Surplus/shortfall = usable − matching demand.

Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint.

Other required records: Incident needs; available teams; vehicles; equipment; travel time; priority protocol.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

8. Review overlapping or missing relief deliveriesDEC-DP16-008 · Relief distribution

Try this decision

Check planned relief packs, documented receipts and overlapping support periods.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Overlapping days [days]	Planned packs not recorded received [packs]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — relief distribution / 2025	61	4	Review the documented delivery shortfall
Rattota — relief distribution / 2025	61	4	Review the documented delivery shortfall
Panvila — relief distribution / 2025	61	4	Review the documented delivery shortfall

What the selected record shows. 20 matching relief packs were planned; 16 have documented receipt. 4 planned packs are not recorded as received. The two supplied support periods overlap for 61 days; check recipient, purpose and delivery records before treating this as duplication or loss.

Next step. Review the documented delivery shortfall. Prepare overlap review in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

A delivery gap or period overlap does not prove diversion or duplicate entitlement.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Permitted recipient/service reference	Laggala Pallegama — relief distribution
Support purpose	Sample seasonal input support
Earlier support period begins	2025-01-01
Earlier support period ends	2025-06-30
Other support period begins	2025-05-01
Other support period ends	2025-08-31
Same purpose and qualifying unit	Yes
Planned matching relief packs for this record	20	packs
Matching packs with documented receipt	16	packs

Compare the same permitted entity, purpose and qualifying unit. Intersect dated support intervals; overlapping support is a review flag, not proof of duplicate entitlement. Delivery shortfall = max(0, planned matching packs − packs recorded received). Retain the dated support-overlap flag separately. A shortfall does not prove diversion or entitlement.

Other required records: Household ID; verified needs; relief type; delivery date; quantity; programme.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

4. Prevent critical shortages in emergency storesDEC-DP16-009 · Relief stocks

Try this decision

Check usable emergency stocks against commitments and expected receipts.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Uncommitted usable stock [packs]	Additional demand gap [packs]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — relief stocks / 2025	310	190	Review replenishment gap
Rattota — relief stocks / 2025	310	190	Review replenishment gap
Panvila — relief stocks / 2025	310	190	Review replenishment gap

What the selected record shows. Uncommitted usable stock: 310 packs. Review replenishment gap.

Next step. Review replenishment gap. Prepare stock review in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Stock totals do not establish item condition, suitability or a reliable delivery date.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Physical stock	1,200	packs
Quarantined stock	100	packs
Expired stock	50	packs
Committed usable stock	740	packs
Additional demand	500	packs
Supplier lead time	14	days
Remaining shelf life of usable stock	30	days

Usable = physical−quarantined−expired (non-overlapping groups). Available = usable−commitments. Additional gap = max(0, new demand−available).

Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment.

Other required records: Commodity; usable stock; commitments; expected demand; lead time; expiry.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

5. Resolve failures identified during preparedness exercisesDEC-DP16-010 · Preparedness drills

Try this decision

Find missing evidence from a response exercise.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Information still needed	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — preparedness drills / Laggala Pallegama	Exercise scenario: Missing	Obtain the missing evidence listed below
Rattota — preparedness drills / Rattota	required actions: Missing	Obtain the missing evidence listed below
Panvila — preparedness drills / Panvila	response times: Missing	Obtain the missing evidence listed below

What the selected record shows. The required evidence is incomplete for this preparedness drills case. The items below identify what must be obtained or reconciled.

Next step. Obtain the missing evidence listed below. Prepare evidence request in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Information still needed

Exercise scenario: Missing

A documented exercise does not establish readiness for every emergency.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Exercise scenario	Missing
Exercise scenario evidence reference	Not provided
required actions	Documented
required actions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
response times	Documented
response times evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
observed failures	Documented
observed failures evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
corrective owner	Documented
corrective owner evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025

Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.

Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.

Other required records: Exercise scenario; required actions; response times; observed failures; corrective owner.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

6. Compare mitigation proposals for exposed communitiesDEC-DP16-011 · Risk reduction

Try this decision

Compare mitigation choices using site evidence, benefits, constraints and resources.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Potential benefit · assumption	Resources and adverse effects	Supporting records / conditions	Next check
Improve warning dissemination / Laggala Pallegama	Improve receipt of authorised warnings.	Needs audience, channel, accessibility and response evidence.	Records: Not provided; condition evidence: Not provided	Obtain the missing records before choosing
Upgrade safe-centre access / Laggala Pallegama	Improve access to the stated safe centre.	Needs site, accessibility, capacity and engineering evidence.	Records: Not provided; condition evidence: Not provided	Obtain the missing records before choosing
Commission site-specific mitigation design / Laggala Pallegama	Develop a site-specific mitigation design.	Needs hazard investigation, rights, engineering and maintenance resources.	Records: Not provided; condition evidence: Not provided	Obtain the missing records before choosing

What the selected record shows. There is not enough information to choose this option. Obtain the records and evidence about conditions listed below. The supplied budget less cost is 300,000 LKR.

Next step. Obtain the missing records before choosing. Prepare evidence request in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Information still needed

Records needed: Hazards; exposure; vulnerability; mitigation options; costs; feasibility; safeguards
Applicable conditions, what was checked and the supporting reference

Cost alone does not select an effective mitigation measure.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Option cost	1,500,000	LKR
Available budget	1,800,000	LKR
Mandatory constraints	Met
Potential benefit and its evidence or assumption	Improve receipt of authorised warnings.
Resource needs and adverse effects	Needs audience, channel, accessibility and response evidence.
Required records available for this option	Not provided
Reference for the required records	Not provided
Applicable conditions, check result and supporting reference	Not provided

Compare each alternative's stated benefit, adverse effects, domain evidence and mandatory constraints. Where cost and budget are supplied, budget balance = budget − option cost. A budget balance alone does not determine domain feasibility or select an option.

Cost alone does not select an effective mitigation measure.

Other required records: Hazards; exposure; vulnerability; mitigation options; costs; feasibility; safeguards.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

12. Prioritize schools hospitals and utilities for risk assessmentDEC-DP16-012 · Critical facilities

Try this decision

Review supplied asset matches to a dated hazard footprint.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Spatially matched share [%]	Distinct matched receptors [facilities]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — critical facilities / 2025	24	18	Check the matching footprint, source boundary and applicable conditions
Rattota — critical facilities / 2025	24	18	Check the matching footprint, source boundary and applicable conditions
Panvila — critical facilities / 2025	24	18	Check the matching footprint, source boundary and applicable conditions

What the selected record shows. The supplied overlap is 18 facilities within the 75 facilities assessed footprint, or 24%. Check the cited boundary and source records before interpreting the overlap.

Next step. Check the matching footprint, source boundary and applicable conditions. Prepare overlap review in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Reported matches are not a new spatial analysis or a prediction of damage.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Distinct facilities in the matching assessed frame	75	facilities
Those facilities reported within the source-defined area; counted once	18	facilities
Boundary edition and spatial predicate	Sample within/overlap predicate1
Hazard/constraint/source class and observation period	Sample dated source class
Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence	Provided
Area/count source and matching definition reference	Fictional matched survey return / edition 1

100×distinct spatially matched receptors / receptors in the same frame. Count a receptor once across overlapping areas; do not invent hectare areas from points. The areas/counts are supplied records; this decision view does not calculate intersections, distances or locations.

Geometry preparation must use matching coordinate systems, dated boundary editions and valid spatial predicates. Overlap supports referral; it does not determine ownership, permission or site safety. A static reference image does not verify these supplied measurements or boundaries.

Other required records: Facility locations; hazard layers; service population; vulnerability; boundary uncertainty.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Reference map image

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

13. Identify areas awaiting reliable rapid damage assessmentsDEC-DP16-013 · Rapid assessments

Try this decision

Identify locations without confirmed rapid-assessment coverage.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Verified coverage [%]	Known uncovered [assessments]	Unknown coverage [assessments]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — rapid assessments / 2025	65	30	5	Check the records behind the uncovered and unknown groups
Rattota — rapid assessments / 2025	85	15	0	Check the records behind the uncovered and unknown groups
Panvila — rapid assessments / 2025	45	40	15	Check the records behind the uncovered and unknown groups

What the selected record shows. 30 assessments are known to be uncovered; 5 have unknown coverage. 65% are confirmed covered.

Next step. Check the records behind the uncovered and unknown groups. Prepare coverage follow-up in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Coverage does not establish the quality or completeness of each assessment.

Example chart

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Required eligible frame	100	assessments
Distinct members of that frame covered	65	assessments
Frame members with unknown coverage	5	assessments

100 × distinct covered eligible units / eligible frame. Known uncovered = frame − covered − unknown.

Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures.

Other required records: Affected-area frame; submitted assessments; accepted assessments; age; assessor capacity.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

7. Resolve incompatible assignments across response agenciesDEC-DP16-014 · Response coordination

Try this decision

Check inter-agency task dates, capacity and dependencies.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Planned duration [days]	Resource hours remaining [hours]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — response coordination / 2025	3	8	Resolve overlapping resource bookings
Rattota — response coordination / 2025	3	8	Resolve overlapping resource bookings
Panvila — response coordination / 2025	3	8	Resolve overlapping resource bookings

What the selected record shows. Planned duration: 3 days. Resolve overlapping resource bookings.

Next step. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Prepare schedule review in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

A feasible example schedule does not notify or assign responders.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Required resource	Watershed field team
Task start	2025-06-01
Task end	2025-06-04
Earliest permitted start	2025-05-28
Latest permitted finish	2025-06-08
Required resource effort	16	hours
Available resource effort	24	hours
Predecessor task reference	None
Mandatory permits and prerequisites	Met

Check start/end order, operating window, effort, predecessor completion and overlapping bookings for the same resource. A conflict is flagged; no optimal schedule is invented.

Other required records: Tasks; agency roles; locations; dependencies; resources; coordination decisions.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

8. Escalate delayed reconstruction and rehabilitation workDEC-DP16-015 · Recovery progress

Try this decision

Identify recovery milestones with missing or late completion evidence.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Calendar date difference [days]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — recovery progress / 2025	8	Check the matching records and reasons for the difference
Rattota — recovery progress / 2025	8	Check the matching records and reasons for the difference
Panvila — recovery progress / 2025	8	Check the matching records and reasons for the difference

What the selected record shows. Calendar date difference: 8 days.

Next step. Check the matching records and reasons for the difference. Prepare difference review in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

A missed milestone does not establish its cause or justify a funding decision.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Planned milestone/sowing date	2025-06-01
Observed completion/sowing date	2025-06-09

Observed date minus planned date in calendar days. Missing actual dates are pending, not zero delay. Approved working-day rules require a defined calendar.

Other required records: Approved milestones; actual work; acceptance; budget; affected service; dependencies.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

9. Review changing disaster impacts across comparable eventsDEC-DP16-016 · Impact trends

Try this decision

Review recorded disaster impacts over the available comparable years.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Observed value [affected households per 1000 exposed]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — impact trends / 2025	104	Check source and period comparability before using the trend
Rattota — impact trends / 2025	111	Check source and period comparability before using the trend
Panvila — impact trends / 2025	118	Check source and period comparability before using the trend

What the selected record shows. Observed value: 104 affected households per 1000 exposed.

Next step. Check source and period comparability before using the trend. Prepare trend report in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

A short example series does not establish a trend in hazard probability.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Comparable observation	104	affected households per 1000 exposed

Display observations in dated order. Sample SD uses n−1; coefficient of variation = 100 × SD / positive mean.

Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend.

Other required records: Hazard type; event severity; affected units; exposure denominator; reporting changes.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

10. Check whether local contingency plans remain usableDEC-DP16-017 · Contingency plans

Try this decision

Find missing responsibilities and evidence in a contingency-plan review.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Information still needed	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — contingency plans / Laggala Pallegama	Plan edition: Missing	Obtain the missing evidence listed below
Rattota — contingency plans / Rattota	hazard scenarios: Missing	Obtain the missing evidence listed below
Panvila — contingency plans / Panvila	contacts: Missing	Obtain the missing evidence listed below

What the selected record shows. The required evidence is incomplete for this contingency plans case. The items below identify what must be obtained or reconciled.

Next step. Obtain the missing evidence listed below. Prepare evidence request in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Information still needed

Plan edition: Missing

Checklist completeness does not establish operational readiness.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Plan edition	Missing
Plan edition evidence reference	Not provided
hazard scenarios	Documented
hazard scenarios evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
contacts	Documented
contacts evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
resources	Documented
resources evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
drills	Documented
drills evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
approval dates	Documented
approval dates evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025

Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.

Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.

Other required records: Plan edition; hazard scenarios; contacts; resources; drills; approval dates.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

11. Verify authority and validity before publishing alertsDEC-DP16-018 · Public information

Try this decision

Check the source, issuer and audience conditions before a warning-publication referral.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Information still needed	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — public information / Laggala Pallegama	Issuing authority: Missing	Obtain the missing evidence listed below
Rattota — public information / Rattota	warning version: Missing	Obtain the missing evidence listed below
Panvila — public information / Panvila	affected area: Missing	Obtain the missing evidence listed below

What the selected record shows. The required evidence is incomplete for this public information case. The items below identify what must be obtained or reconciled.

Next step. Obtain the missing evidence listed below. Prepare evidence request in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Information still needed

Issuing authority: Missing

The example does not authorise, publish or send a warning.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Issuing authority	Missing
Issuing authority evidence reference	Not provided
warning version	Documented
warning version evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
affected area	Documented
affected area evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
expiry	Documented
expiry evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
publication approval	Documented
publication approval evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025

Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.

Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.

Other required records: Issuing authority; warning version; affected area; expiry; publication approval.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

12. Assess response effectiveness and unintended consequencesDEC-DP16-019 · Response evaluation

Try this decision

Compare response outcomes across the supplied treatment and comparison periods.

Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Difference in changes [%]	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — response evaluation / 2025	10	Obtain the missing evidence listed below
Rattota — response evaluation / 2025	10	Obtain the missing evidence listed below
Panvila — response evaluation / 2025	10	Obtain the missing evidence listed below

What the selected record shows. Treatment change: 17; comparison change: 7; difference in changes: 10 %. This comparison alone does not establish causation or benefit.

Next step. Obtain the missing evidence listed below. Prepare evidence request in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Information still needed

Study design and evidence that the treatment and comparison records are comparable

Differences in changes do not establish a causal response effect.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Treatment Verified response completion before	42	%
Treatment Verified response completion after	59	%
Comparison Verified response completion before	39	%
Comparison Verified response completion after	46	%
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Verified response completion /example matching definition1

(Treatment after−before) − (comparison after−before), using the same outcome definition and periods.

The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence.

Other required records: Response actions; baseline readiness; outcomes; timing; community feedback; evaluation design.

World Bank · Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition
Institution publication · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170

The formula is verified. Causal interpretation still requires a defensible study design, comparison and assumptions.

Calculation appendix

World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition — Institution publication. Chapter7 difference-in-differences. Published difference-in-differences estimator and study assumptions; aggregate examples do not establish causation.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

20. Reconcile duplicate disaster incident reportsDEC-DP16-020 · Incident records

Try this decision

Compare incident descriptions and source definitions before reconciling reports.

Validation required

Fictional default example · 2025.

Fictional case / area	Original record	Comparison record	Next check
Laggala Pallegama — incident records / Laggala Pallegama	Event ID: primary register entry	Event ID: conflicting source return	Resolve source disagreement
Rattota — incident records / Rattota	Event ID: primary register entry	Event ID: conflicting source return	Resolve source disagreement
Panvila — incident records / Panvila	Event ID: primary register entry	Event ID: conflicting source return	Resolve source disagreement

What the selected record shows. The original record says “Event ID: primary register entry”; the comparison says “Event ID: conflicting source return”. Their matching meaning has not been established. Obtain the source definitions and supporting records before reconciling them.

Next step. Resolve source disagreement. Prepare source comparison in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.

Matching labels do not establish that two reports describe the same event.

Inputs, method and sources

Supplied input	Value	Unit
Original source value/definition	Event ID: primary register entry
Comparison source value/definition	Event ID: conflicting source return
Original version	Sample version1
Comparison version	Sample version2
Do the two source records have documented matching meanings?	Unresolved

Compare original definitions, identifiers, units and versions against documented equivalence evidence. Preserve conflicts and unresolved mappings; do not subtract category labels or silently merge records.

Other required records: Event ID; time; location; hazard; reporting agency; duplicate evidence.

Calculation appendix

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

13. Identify safe centres that need additional water suppliesDEC-DP16-021 · Published method

Try this decision

Source. Sri Lanka publication.

Data needed. Verified people at each centre, planning days, usable drinking and domestic water, and approved planning rate.

Method. Estimate household water need from people × days × litres per person per day. The Ministry of Health article cites the Sphere figure of 15 L per person per day for drinking, cooking and hygiene. Compare with usable supply.

Worked example. A centre houses 160 people for two days. At 15 L per person per day, the example needs 4,800 L. With 4,200 L usable, the planning shortfall is 600 L.

Next step. Prioritize replenishment where usable supply falls below the confirmed planning requirement.

Epidemiology Unit, Ministry of Health, Water Supply in Disaster Management, Part I. Weekly Epidemiological Report, Vol. 43 No. 24, p. 1, Sphere indicators.

Water supply standard 2.1 provides the underlying emergency planning guidance. Sphere Handbook.

Confirm the applicable planning rate, current headcount, usable water, sanitation needs and delivery timing with the responsible response team.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

Field	Unit	Required
Layer Name RiskInfo	Confirm if needed	No
Category	Confirm if needed	No
Max	Confirm if needed	No
Class Name	Confirm if needed	No
max11	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
range	Confirm if needed	No
level	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
range	Confirm if needed	No
category	Confirm if needed	No
manual	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Shelter_Type	Confirm if needed	No
Shelter_Owned_by	Confirm if needed	No
Shelter_Capacity	Confirm if needed	No
Number_of_Floors	Confirm if needed	No

1. Check a decision

2. Try the inputs

3. Check each decision

4. Existing data forms for your institution

5. Documents and images

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

6. Data structure management

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

7. Users and access

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

9. Anything else we should change?

Disaster Management Centre

1. Check a decision

2. Try the inputs

3. Check each decision

4. Existing data forms for your institution

5. Documents and images

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

6. Data structure management

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

7. Users and access

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

8. Can you share data regularly?

9. Anything else we should change?