SHARED
Calculations and Decision Rules
Companion to the Software Requirements Specification
Version 1.6
Published methods and pending decisions through Institution review
This appendix states how the prototype calculates results and how the proposed system should handle the related decisions. Read it with the main SRS. Each method shows its source, required inputs, calculation or steps, example, limits and approval needs. A correct sample calculation is not evidence of local scientific acceptance.
The main SRS, appendix and controlled registers form one Version 1.6 review package. The 57 family IDs, 820 candidate decisions and 139 method IDs are retained. Repeated examples use one family definition. Use the registers for exact inputs, units, source links, scope and pending approval.
1 Using this appendix
2 Shared calculations and business rules
3 Calculation families
4 Retained method references
5 Sources
6 Approval and acceptance
1 Using this appendix
The Word, PDF and web editions describe the same method content. The following registers are controlled parts of Version 1.6 and must travel with the appendix. The main coverage workbook remains the design coverage record.
Decision_Register.csv All 820 decision examples, exact configured inputs and limits, units, source roles, owners and pending approval. Open online
Method_References.csv All 139 existing reference definitions, formulas or procedures, inputs, limits and original source links. These are candidate methods, not a claim of equivalence to an implemented family. Open online
Calculation_Sources.csv The full source register, with title, URL, locator, source role and access status. Open online
Government publication and Institution publication identify direct support for the stated core method. Record the publisher, edition and exact page or section. Validation required identifies project rules, adaptations or incomplete support. A data or background source alone does not support a formula. Published methods need no repeat proof; confirm local settings and intended use. Developers test copying, arithmetic and input handling. Section 6 separates these checks from client and expert decisions.
Source IDs LOCAL SRS in the registers retain their original legacy chapter labels. They refer to the earlier separate chapter set, not to the current 14 chapter numbering. The PROTO source identifies the prototype function and decision ID; SRS identifies this main SRS. No source citation grants legal, financial or scientific authority.
Inputs and limits
Use the same population, entity, boundary, period, definition, unit and source edition for a comparison. Keep the numerator and denominator visible. Preserve original values, missing reasons, uncertainty and access rights. No data is different from a measured zero. Do not infer a complete population from a partial snapshot or sum incompatible quantities.
All family inputs are required unless an approved method explicitly permits absence. The Decision Register records each current numeric input bound and whole number constraint. These are prototype guards, not scientifically recommended ranges. Generic units in a sample must be replaced by the exact approved institutional definition. Keep calculation precision; round only for display under an agreed rule. No default weights, rates, risk categories, warning levels or legal limits become official through this appendix.
Examples use invented values to check arithmetic. They are not institutional observations or recommendations. The wider proposed procedure in each family may need more data and specialist processing than the displayed example. Where the prototype only plots inputs or completeness, that limitation is stated explicitly.
Read a family in this order: question; exact formula; inputs and units; worked example; effect of an input change; wider proposed procedure; limits; source category. The example explains the prototype rule. It does not demonstrate every part of the wider procedure.
2 Shared calculations and business rules
Counts and source coverage
Count records only within the selected source and filters. Distinct count uses the reviewed identity key. Coverage reports supplied observations and requested rows separately. A snapshot total is not the population total.
Example One person with two memberships and three support episodes counts as one person, two memberships and three episodes.
Category Validation required. Source PublicDashboardModel.metric/uniqueRows; SrsDemonstration.coverage; ReportModel.execute. Requirements FR076 FR077 FR097. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Weighted means and pooled rates
Weighted mean = sum of weight × value divided by sum of valid weights. For a pooled rate, sum compatible numerators and denominators, then divide. Missing weights or a zero total denominator withhold the result.
Example Values 10 and 20 with weights 1 and 3 give 17.5. Rates 1/2 and 9/10 pool to 10/12, or 83.3333 percent.
Category Institution publication. Publisher United Nations Statistics Division (Final Draft). Source DecisionSupportModel.project SURVEY; SRS 5.4. Requirements FR099 FR103. Sources PROTO, SRS, S91.
Review Published core needs no repeat proof. Confirm local inputs, units and settings under E01; E02/E03 where relevant. See Section 6.
Basic crop yield
Production in tonnes divided by matching positive harvested hectares gives t/ha. Do not mix cultivated, sown and harvested area. Reject negative production or zero area.
Example 400 t / 100 ha = 4 t/ha.
Category Validation required. Source SrsCalculations.yield; YIELD input contract. Requirements FR082 FR103. Sources PROTO, SRS, S67.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Break even and margin ratios
For the stated variable cost scope, break even price = variable cost / positive saleable output. Margin ratio = 100 × gross margin / positive revenue. A break even yield uses cost per hectare divided by the applicable positive net price. State which fixed costs are excluded.
Example Variable cost LKR 70000 and 1000 kg give LKR 70/kg. LKR 30000 gross margin on LKR 100000 revenue gives 30 percent.
Category Validation required. Source SRS 5.4; MARGIN; NF022; proposed algebra from the stated gross margin identity. Requirements FR082 FR103. Sources SRS, S76. Published components: Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (S76).
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Percentage variance and target progress
Percentage variance = 100 × (actual − plan) / plan for a nonzero plan. Progress from a baseline = 100 × (actual − baseline) / (target − baseline) for unequal target and baseline. Target achievement = 100 × actual / target for a nonzero target. These are different measures. Keep underachievement and values over 100 percent visible unless an approved display rule says otherwise.
Example Actual 120 and plan 100 give +20 and +20 percent. Baseline 20, actual 60 and target 100 give 50 percent progress and 60 percent target achievement.
Category Validation required. Source SrsCalculations.variance; SRS 5.4; NF171. Requirements FR103 FR124. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Reviewed weighted criteria
Normalize each criterion as (value − worst) / (best − worst). Score = 100 × sum of weight × normalized value. Weights must be finite, nonnegative and total one within 0.000000001. Anchors must differ; every required input must lie between its anchors. Exclude infeasible options first. The prototype rounds the score to four decimals before ranking. Rank = one plus the number of strictly higher displayed scores; ties have equal rank.
Example A benefit criterion with worst 0, best 100 and value 80 scores 80. A cost criterion with worst 100, best 0 and value 20 also scores 80. Equal options both rank 1.
Category Validation required. Source SrsCalculations.weighted; SrsDemonstration.compareDecision. Requirements FR102 FR105. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Annual cash flows and payback
For years 0 to n, discounted flow = signed cash flow / (1 + rate fraction) raised to the year. NPV is the sum. The prototype accepts 2 to 51 annual flows and rate above −1 through 1. Its paybackYear is the first year greater than zero with nonnegative cumulative undiscounted cash flow. It is not discounted payback or fractional payback. Do not use it for an unusual flow pattern without a reviewed rule.
Example Flows −100, 60, 60 at 10 percent give NPV 4.1322 and undiscounted payback year 2.
Category Validation required. Source SrsCalculations.cashFlow; FINANCE; NF145 NF147 NF157. Requirements FR103 FR105. Sources PROTO, SRS, S81. Published components: Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (S81).
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Cost per additional observed outcome
Observed change = actual − baseline. Cost per additional unit = nonnegative comparable cost / observed change only when that change is positive. A decrease, no change or missing value withholds this ratio. This rule alone does not establish causation or handle a lower is better indicator.
Example Cost LKR 10000, baseline 20 and actual 60 give change 40 and LKR 250 per additional observed unit.
Category Validation required. Source SrsCalculations.costOutcome. Requirements FR103 FR125. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Rainfall missing values and comparable pairs
Calculate a supplied value mean using only explicitly supplied readings; retain the supplied count. A required complete period mean stays unavailable if any required period is missing. Paired analysis uses only compatible pairs and reports their count. A real zero is retained.
Example Example rainfall 1200, 1300, missing, 1400, 1500 mm gives supplied mean 1350 mm and coverage 4/5. With the corresponding cultivation series, paired coverage is 3/5.
Category Validation required. Source SrsCalculations.rainfall; SRS rainfall acceptance example. Requirements FR099 FR103. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Statistical summaries in retained method references
For sorted valid observations, median is the middle value or mean of the two middle values. Sample standard deviation uses sum of squared deviations divided by n − 1 before taking the square root. CV percent = 100 × sample standard deviation / positive mean, with n at least 2 and a meaningful zero. Quartiles need a named algorithm. Shannon sample diversity uses −sum of p × natural log(p), omitting zero terms. These definitions are proposed reference methods; the simple decision plots do not perform them all.
Example For 10, 20, 30, median and mean are 20, sample SD is 10 and CV is 50 percent. For two equally common species, Shannon index is ln(2), about 0.6931.
Category Validation required. Source NF077 NF086 NF109 NF114 NF115; DISTRIBUTION and VOLATILITY catalogue. Requirements FR099 FR103. Sources SRS, S84. Published components: Government publication - United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (S84).
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Spatial measurements and intersection
The prototype uses its spatial engine on WGS84 coordinates. Area in square metres is divided by 10000 for hectares. Line length and point distance use kilometres. Intersection area is measured from the actual intersected polygons. Point containment uses the library boundary rule. These are spherical exploratory estimates. A projected authoritative analysis needs a separately approved service and CRS.
Example An intersection of 200000 square metres is 20 ha. An empty intersection is zero area. Different geographic roles cannot be substituted.
Category Validation required. Source SpatialModel.vector; GeographicWorkflow.analyse/compareHistory. Requirements SH-GEO-FEAT-008 SH-GEO-FEAT-012 FR066. Sources PROTO, SRS, S85, S86, S87, S89, S90.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Buffers proximity and spatial limits
Buffer and point proximity radius must be above zero and no more than 20 km; the buffer uses 24 steps. Viewport vector analysis requires 1 to 749 loaded features and excludes demonstration geometry. Count nearby valid points within the chosen radius and report excluded or unsupported features. These are prototype workload limits, not environmental buffer rules.
Example A point at distance 1.5 km is included by a 2 km radius; one at 2.5 km is excluded. A 0 km radius is rejected.
Category Validation required. Source SpatialModel.vector. Requirements FR066 FR074. Sources PROTO, SRS, S86, S88.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Raster pairs and change
Both rasters must retain native aligned width, height, bounding box, CRS, unit and kind. Preview supports EPSG:4326 and at most 262144 cells per grid; no resampling is performed. For each valid pair count changed cells. Continuous mean difference = sum of later minus earlier values divided by paired count. Classified grids produce transition counts. Missing pairs are excluded and counted, not set to zero. Cell counts are not automatically hectares.
Example Earlier cells 1, missing, 3 and later cells 2, 4, 3 give 2 pairs, 1 missing pair, 1 changed cell and mean difference 0.5.
Category Validation required. Source SpatialModel.rasterCheck/rasterCompare. Requirements FR067 FR074. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Reservoir ratios and capacity
Storage percentage = 100 × effective storage / positive active capacity. Capacity composition accepts positive gross capacity, nonnegative dead and effective volumes, and dead plus effective no greater than gross. Remaining volume = gross − dead − effective. Labels must match the source definitions.
Example Gross 100, dead 10 and effective 60 leave 30 in the stated source volume unit. Effective 60 / active 90 gives 66.6667 percent.
Category Validation required. Source WaterModel.ratio/capacity. Requirements FR099 FR103. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Source water level thresholds
Use the source station unit and ordered alert, minor and major thresholds. At or above major select the major band, else at or above minor the minor band, else at or above alert the alert band, else below the source alert band. Missing or unordered thresholds withhold the band. This display is not a new warning.
Example For source thresholds 2, 3 and 4 m, a 3 m reading is in the minor threshold band.
Category Validation required. Source WaterModel.status; DisasterModel.delta. Requirements FR103 FR134. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Observation age and endpoint trend
Age in minutes = max(0, as of time − observation time) / 60000. A future timestamp is still a quality issue requiring review. Endpoint trend = (last value − first value) / elapsed hours for the same station and basin with verified, identical units and a positive elapsed time. It is not regression, a forecast or a warning.
Example A 2 m to 3 m change over 2 hours gives +0.5 m/hour.
Category Validation required. Source DisasterModel.age/latest/trend; WaterModel.stationRecords. Requirements FR055 FR099 FR103. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Official warning display
Only a nonsynthetic public actual alert or update, without a superseding record, and with at least one interval containing as of time is active. The valid from boundary is inclusive and valid to is exclusive. Derived values and stale warnings must not become official alerts.
Example A warning valid from 10:00 to 12:00 is active at 10:00 and inactive at 12:00.
Category Validation required. Source DisasterModel.active/publicRows. Requirements FR134 FR135. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Dashboard aggregation and display
Apply source, period and place filters first. Sum only a declared additive measure within compatible category groups. Count rows separately from distinct identities. Melt named compatible measure columns into chart points. A scatter requires both values. Missing numbers stay absent with a missing count; incomplete snapshots stay marked partial. Funding chart separates disbursed grant from grant not yet disbursed and requires grant no less than paid.
Example Grant 100 and disbursed 60 show 60 disbursed and 40 not disbursed. Unknown amounts do not create a zero total.
Category Validation required. Source PublicDashboardModel.project/metric/chartModel; IrrigationModel.chart; ApprovedChartModel.project. Requirements FR099 FR100. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Report joins and reproducibility
Use a reviewed record, geography and period, or identity and period grain. Combine at most four sources with one to twelve chosen measures, at most 500 rows per source and 2000 result rows. Reject duplicate matching keys and unsupported aggregation before joining. Retain unmatched source rows and exact input versions. Changed plans or sources invalidate their review. Limits are prototype input guards.
Example Two source rows with the same join key are rejected before they can multiply a total. An unmatched observation stays missing.
Category Validation required. Source ReportModel.validate/execute/approve/run. Requirements FR094 FR095 FR096 FR097 FR098. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6.
Numeric and date validation
Keep zero distinct from blank. Reject booleans and nonfinite numbers as measurements. Respect each declared type, minimum, maximum, precision and scale; integer fields require safe whole numbers. Provider decimal inputs default to at most 15 significant digits and 8 fractional digits, and reject exponent notation. Validate real calendar dates. Use the exact field contract, not a displayed rounded number, for acceptance.
Example 0 is accepted as a reading. A blank, false and an impossible calendar date are rejected.
Category Validation required. Source SrsCalculations.number; ProviderWorkflows.validate; SrsDemonstration.validate; DecisionSupportModel.validate. Requirements FR038 FR058 FR103. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review Developer tests valid, invalid and missing inputs. C04 confirms allowed values; expert review applies only to scientific limits.
Identity and competing source claims
An independent steward reviews both source identities before adding a relationship. Preserve the separate objects, source claims and histories. A preferred claim records a purpose and reason; it does not delete alternatives. Similar names do not prove identity.
Example Two reviewed records can be linked as related source identities while both original claims remain visible.
Category Validation required. Source SrsDemonstration.linkIdentity/preferClaim. Requirements FR029 FR030 FR033. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review C02/C04 confirm identity keys, source owners and conflict resolution. Developer tests matching and preserved versions.
Document suggestions and source purpose
Match existing field labels or keys after normalizing text. Rank possible destination forms by count of matched fields, then form name. This is a name match aid, not a scientific or confidence score. Conflicting values, ambiguous numbers and incompatible units require a person to resolve them. Guidance text cannot supply a measured observation. Independent field mapping review and value review are separate.
Example A document stating two different values for rainfall creates a conflict requiring a checked choice; it does not average them.
Category Validation required. Source DocumentSlotModel.matches/rank/values; SrsDemonstration.reviewMapping/mappingKey. Requirements FR046 FR047 FR048 FR049 FR050. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review C04/C05 confirm source rights and permitted purpose. Developer tests evidence links and restricted outputs.
Feed mapping and duplicate events
Freeze the reviewed source, destination dataset and version, field list, event/time/value keys, protocol, schema and device mapping. Preserve original raw keys and values. A changed contract invalidates mapping review. Replay uses the stable event identity to return the original receipt or reject changed content under that identity. A typed or sample payload is not a provider receipt.
Example Replay of the same event returns the same receipt; the same event key with different measured content is rejected.
Category Validation required. Source SrsDemonstration.feedContract/reviewFeedMapping/feedReplay/importAtomic. Requirements FR051 FR052 FR053 FR054 FR055 FR056. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review C04 confirms field mapping and source contract. Developer tests duplicates, rejected rows and safe retries.
Review independence and stale evidence
Authors cannot perform protected independent reviews of their own work. Actions require the correct role, institution, state and exact record version. Revisions preserve predecessors and clear checks tied to changed evidence. A saved sample or a successful arithmetic check does not approve a scientific method.
Example A revised input version cannot reuse an approval for the earlier values.
Category Validation required. Source SrsDemonstration.role/independent/review/revise; ProviderWorkflows.review; DecisionSupportModel.adviceTransition. Requirements FR050 FR107 FR113 FR121. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review C02 confirms reviewer roles. Developer tests separation of roles, changed versions and stale evidence.
Dependencies and project authorization
Check required people, prerequisites, finance, conditions and institutional authorization before activating work. Block cyclic dependencies and unavailable prerequisites. Track recommendation, authorized decision, performed work and verified outcome separately.
Example A task with an unfinished required prerequisite remains blocked.
Category Validation required. Source SrsDemonstration.dependency/dependenciesComplete/authorize/activate. Requirements FR105 FR110 FR111 FR112 FR114 FR115. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review C01/C02 confirm scope, roles and approval steps. Developer tests dependencies and authorization rules.
Actual progress and outcome evidence
Only the assigned person records progress on open work. Require nonnegative quantity, unit, observation date, evidence and actual geographic support. A reviewer checks the submitted observation independently before it becomes verified progress. Outcome learning records observed results and source against the decision version.
Example Repeating identical progress evidence returns the existing entry; changed content under the same evidence identity is rejected.
Category Validation required. Source SrsDemonstration.progress/reviewProgress/outcome. Requirements FR120 FR121 FR123 FR124 FR125. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review C10 confirms progress and outcome definitions. Developer tests evidence links and calculations.
PES verification and payment evidence
A recorded payment requires reviewed evidence, an authorized or active agreement, matching verified service evidence and a source payment reference. Client authority, rights, rates and funding are separate decisions. The prototype records evidence and transfers no money.
Example A service verification for another agreement cannot support a payment record.
Category Validation required. Source SrsDemonstration.recordPayment; PES. Requirements FR092 FR093. Sources PROTO, SRS, S60, S61.
Review E03/C10 confirm rights, service evidence, rates, funding and payment authority. Developer tests the agreed rules.
Closure handover and reopening
Freeze the closure checklist and source versions. Verify each required item independently, with current receiving evidence where needed. Close only after all checks and authority requirements pass. Changing the checklist or linked evidence invalidates its checks. Reopening or a revision keeps the prior closure and history.
Example A receiving asset changed after its review blocks closure until the new evidence is checked.
Category Validation required. Source PrototypeCompletion.closureSignature; SrsDemonstration.prepareClosure/fulfil/linkHandover/close/reopen. Requirements FR126 FR127 FR128. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review C02/C11 confirm receiving roles and closure evidence. Developer tests the agreed workflow.
Source rights and publication
Apply scoped permissions for source, recipient, purpose, area, right, field list and validity period. A matching deny overrides an allow. Dataset provider views also require the active policy, role and institution. Public knowledge requires Published state, Public classification, unexpired rights and eligible citations recursively. Cycles, withdrawn sources and missing evidence block publication. No organization membership gives unrestricted access.
Example Expiry of a parent source removes dependent public guidance from the eligible list.
Category Validation required. Source SrsCalculations.permit; ProviderWorkflows.permitted; SrsDemonstration.sourceEligible/publishableSource. Requirements FR095 FR106 FR133 FR134. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review C04/C05 confirm permitted use and audiences. Developer tests publication and source withdrawal.
Feedback appeal and safeguarding
Use the approved receiving institution and response policy. Retain the original feedback, evidence, response, independent appeal and final disposition. A response or attendance record is not consent. Publication checks remove restricted or sensitive content.
Example An unresolved appeal remains open with its accountable receiver.
Category Validation required. Source SrsDemonstration.submitFeedback/respondFeedback/appealFeedback/resolveAppeal; CONSENT. Requirements FR135 FR136. Sources PROTO, SRS, S47.
Review C05/C09 confirm privacy, receiving roles and appeals. Developer tests the agreed workflow.
Optional offline work background jobs and recovery
If the client selects offline operation, retain the base version and original evidence under approved protection and retention. Send stale or changed content to conflict review. Atomic receipts prevent a committed import being repeated. Queued jobs can be cancelled or retried; recover a lost response using its existing receipt. Additional channels and offline synchronisation remain proposed options under C01/C06/C07. Operational evidence is still required.
Example Retry after a lost response returns the committed receipt and does not import a second copy.
Category Validation required. Source SrsDemonstration.queueOffline/syncOffline/importAtomic/jobAction. IDs FR139 FR140 FR141 FR145 FR148 SH-GEO-FEAT-017. Sources PROTO, SRS.
Review C01/C06/C07/C08 confirm the selected options and targets. Developer tests the agreed implementation.
Acceptance and release decisions
Mock design coverage means the screen behavior is shown. It does not prove production implementation, local scientific validity, consultation, legal permission, service operations or formal acceptance. Client and experts approve this SRS and its appendix as one version through Institution review; no separate TOR review or UI reviewer gate is added.
Example An arithmetically correct erosion example still needs local factor and method approval before an operational decision.
Category Validation required. Source SRS Chapter 12 acceptance and Chapter 13 review decisions; Institution review. Requirements FR150 FR151 FR152 FR153 FR154 FR155 FR156. Sources SRS, PROTO.
Review C11 records final acceptance after the relevant C01 to C12 and E01 to E03 decisions. Developer evidence does not grant approval.
3 Calculation families
Find the family by its existing ID. Inputs below show a representative configured decision. The Decision Register supplies every decision specific input, unit and bound, including the crop water, productivity, trend and cash balance variants. Read the shared rules in Section 2 with each family. All source codes resolve in Calculation Sources and the web source register.
CHANGE Comparable change
Decision example. Prioritize bathymetric surveys and desilting appraisal.
change = current − baseline
Inputs and units. Earlier surveyed capacity on the same datum (m³); Later surveyed capacity on the same datum (m³).
Worked example. DEC-DP05-008 — Laggala Pallegama — reservoir sedimentation, 2025. Earlier surveyed capacity on the same datum = 900,000 m³; Later surveyed capacity on the same datum = 860,000 m³. Difference = -40,000 m³; Relative change = -4.444 %. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Earlier surveyed capacity on the same datum = 900,001. Difference = -40,001 m³. Without Earlier surveyed capacity on the same datum, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Later/comparison value minus Earlier/source value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Earlier/source value when the earlier value is positive.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. land change, change, publication revision.
OVERLAY Spatial constraint screening
Decision example. Refer proposed developments overlapping constraints.
overlap share = 100 × overlap area ÷ footprint area
Inputs and units. Assessed footprint or frame (ha); Reported common overlap, counted once (ha); Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference.
Worked example. DEC-DP01-002 — Laggala Pallegama — development screening, 2025. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Overlap share = 23.762 %. Without Assessed footprint or frame, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. 100 × union of constraint overlap / proposal footprint. Count intersecting constraint areas once. The areas/counts are supplied records; this decision view does not calculate intersections, distances or locations.
Limits. 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.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. overlay, mahaweli plan, mahaweli reservation, point overlay, well proximity.
COVERAGE Coverage and unmet need
Decision example. Commission missing divisional land-use plans.
coverage = 100 × served eligible units ÷ eligible units
Inputs and units. Divisions in this reporting record (divisions); Divisions with a current applicable plan (divisions); Divisions whose plan status is unknown (divisions).
Worked example. DEC-DP01-003 — Laggala Pallegama — planning coverage, 2025. Divisions in this reporting record = 1 divisions; Divisions with a current applicable plan = 0 divisions; Divisions whose plan status is unknown = 0 divisions. Verified coverage = 0 %; Known uncovered = 1 divisions; Unknown coverage = 0 divisions. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Divisions with a current applicable plan = 1. Verified coverage = 100 %. Without Divisions in this reporting record, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. 100 × distinct covered eligible units / eligible frame. Known uncovered = frame − covered − unknown.
Limits. Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. coverage, feature changes.
MISMATCH Independent evidence reconciliation
Decision example. Investigate field and map classification disagreements.
unresolved comparisons = count(missing or conflicting equivalence)
Inputs and units. Original source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence.
Worked example. DEC-DP01-004 — Laggala Pallegama — field verification, 2025. Original source value/definition = Forest class in land-cover register; Comparison source value/definition = Agroforestry class in field return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Without Original source value/definition, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. 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.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. mismatch, series mismatch, numeric mismatch, lineage, location mismatch, schema mismatch, affected lots.
EROSION Erosion model comparison
Decision example. Target detailed soil-loss assessment in planning units.
soil loss = R × K × LS × C × P
Inputs and units. Rainfall erosivity (MJ mm/(ha h year)); Soil erodibility (t ha h/(ha MJ mm)); Slope-length and steepness factor (ratio); Cover-management factor (fraction); Support-practice factor (fraction).
Worked example. DEC-DP01-016 — Laggala Pallegama — land degradation, 2025. Rainfall erosivity = 950 MJ mm/(ha h year); Soil erodibility = 0.035 t ha h/(ha MJ mm); Slope-length and steepness factor = 2.8 ratio; Cover-management factor = 0.24 fraction; Support-practice factor = 0.7 fraction. Estimated annual sheet/rill loss = 15.641 t/ha/year. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Rainfall erosivity = 951. Estimated annual sheet/rill loss = 15.657 t/ha/year. Without Rainfall erosivity, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. R × K × LS × C × P, using a mutually consistent SI factor set.
Limits. This USLE factor product is not a full RUSLE2 run, measured loss, delivered sediment, gully loss or landslide forecast. Local factors and uncertainty need review.
Method sources. Verified published formula. USLE factor product. Government publication — United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1980 technical publication SA-TP 11; Universal Soil Loss Equation, printed page 2; metric conversion appendix, printed page 40. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/60600505/RUSLE/A%20guide%20for%20predicting%20sheet%20and%20rill%20erosion%20on%20forest%20land.pdf. The historical source verifies the factor product. Local factor choice and suitability still need confirmation; this is not a full RUSLE2 implementation.
Domain variants. erosion.
OPTIONS Alternative appraisal
Decision example. Compare candidate settlement expansion areas.
affordability difference = available budget − estimated option cost
Inputs and units. Option cost (LKR); Available budget (LKR); Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects.
Worked example. DEC-DP01-007 — Infill near existing services, 2025. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional infill near existing services option: compare the documented Candidate polygon, service capacity.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Option cost = 1,500,001. Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Without Option cost, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Budget minus option cost. Compare benefits, adverse effects and mandatory constraints separately; no weighted score or automatic best option.
Limits. Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. options.
COMPOSITION Composition without false aggregation
Decision example. Plan seed support around observed rice-category uptake.
category share = 100 × category count ÷ sum of compatible category counts
Inputs and units. Distinct eligible original plots (plots); Sown area recorded separately (ha).
Worked example. DEC-DP03-001 — Bg 300, 2025. Distinct eligible original plots = 107 plots; Sown area recorded separately = 115 ha. Plot count = 107 plots; Share of eligible plots = 18.259 %; Share of recorded sown area = 14.303 %. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Distinct eligible original plots = 108. Plot count = 108 plots. Without Distinct eligible original plots, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Plot share =100 × distinct eligible plots in category / eligible plots in all categories. Sown-area shares use a separate hectare denominator; grouped inputs do not verify plot identity.
Limits. Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. fragmentation, erosion area, rice plots, variety area, export composition, feedback.
TREND Trend with uncertainty
Decision example. Review long-term trends in homogeneous station records.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
display the observed value against its recorded observation period
Inputs and units. Comparable observation (°C).
Worked example. DEC-DP08-017 — Laggala Pallegama — climate trends, 2025. Comparable observation = 28.1 °C. Observed value = 28.1 °C. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Comparable observation = 28.381. Observed value = 28.381 °C. Without Comparable observation, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Display dated air temperatures and their mean/sample standard deviation in °C. Celsius has an arbitrary zero; do not report relative percentage change or a coefficient of variation.
Limits. Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. trend, groundwater trend.
COST Unit cost and cost drivers
Decision example. Compare conservation cost per verified treated hectare.
unit cost = (labour + materials + other costs) ÷ verified output
Inputs and units. Labour cost (LKR); Material/input cost (LKR); Other non-overlapping cost (LKR); Verified matching hectares (ha).
Worked example. DEC-DP02-017 — Laggala Pallegama — conservation economics, 2025. Labour cost = 180,000 LKR; Material/input cost = 255,000 LKR; Other non-overlapping cost = 62,000 LKR; Verified matching hectares = 5.4 ha. Cost per matching unit = 92,037.037 LKR/ha; Total cost = 497,000 LKR. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Labour cost = 180,001. Cost per matching unit = 92,037.222 LKR/ha. Without Labour cost, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Sum non-overlapping costs, then divide by the matching verified quantity for the same currency and accounting period.
Limits. An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. cost ha, survey cost, damage loss, food basket, input expenditure, cost output, tonne km, verification cost.
WATER Crop water requirement
Decision example. Prepare crop-stage irrigation recommendations.
ETc = ETo × Kc
net = max(0, ETc + DP + dS − (P − RO) − CR)
gross = net × area × 10 ÷ efficiency
ETo is reference evapotranspiration; Kc is the crop coefficient; DP is deep percolation or the stated paddy allowance; dS is the desired increase in stored water; P minus RO is rainfall after runoff; CR is capillary contribution. Net is in mm/day; area is in ha; efficiency is a fraction. Set inapplicable allowances to zero.
Inputs and units. Irrigated crop area (ha); Reference evapotranspiration (mm/day); Crop coefficient (ratio); Rainfall reaching the field after runoff (mm/day); Deep percolation and paddy allowance (mm/day); Capillary contribution (mm/day); Desired change in stored soil water (mm/day); Field application efficiency (fraction).
Worked example. DEC-DP03-003 — Laggala Pallegama — irrigation advice, 2025. Irrigated crop area = 85 ha; Reference evapotranspiration = 4.5 mm/day; Crop coefficient = 1.1 ratio; Rainfall reaching the field after runoff = 1.6 mm/day; Deep percolation and paddy allowance = 2 mm/day; Capillary contribution = 0 mm/day; Desired change in stored soil water = 0 mm/day; Field application efficiency = 0.68 fraction. Gross daily irrigation requirement = 6,687.5 m³/day; Net field requirement = 5.35 mm/day. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Irrigated crop area = 85.85. Gross daily irrigation requirement = 6,754.375 m³/day. Without Irrigated crop area, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. ETc = ETo × Kc. Net = max(0, ETc + percolation + desired storage increase − rainfall after runoff − capillary contribution). Gross = net × hectares ×10 / application efficiency.
Limits. The full local balance, rooting depth, stress, crop stage and operating constraints still matter. The paddy allowance is explicit and must be zero where inapplicable. This is not an authorized reservoir release.
Method sources. Verified published component. Crop evapotranspiration ETc component. Institution publication — Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Chapter 5, Crop coefficient approach, equation 56. https://www.fao.org/4/X0490E/x0490e0a.htm. This verifies the ETc component only. Local water-balance allowances, coefficients and operating decisions still need confirmation.
Domain variants. water.
VARIANCE Plan versus actual
Decision example. Investigate differences between planned and actual use.
variance = actual − plan
Inputs and units. Hectares planned for the selected land-use class (ha); Hectares observed in that same class (ha).
Worked example. DEC-DP01-017 — Laggala Pallegama — plan implementation, 2025. Hectares planned for the selected land-use class = 100 ha; Hectares observed in that same class = 90 ha. Difference = -10 ha; Relative change = -10 %. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Hectares planned for the selected land-use class = 101. Difference = -11 ha. Without Hectares planned for the selected land-use class, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Observed value minus Planned value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Planned value when the earlier value is positive.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. variance, dated variance, cost progress.
REPEAT Repeated support or overlapping claims
Decision example. Review repeated farmer assistance before new allocation.
overlap = max(0, min(end1, end2) − max(start1, start2) + 1)
Inputs and units. Permitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit.
Worked example. DEC-DP04-002 — Laggala Pallegama — support overlap, 2025. Permitted recipient/service reference = Laggala Pallegama — support overlap; 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. Overlapping days = 61 days. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Other support period begins = 2025-01-01; Other support period ends = 2025-06-30. Overlapping days = 181 days. Without Permitted recipient/service reference, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Compare the same permitted entity, purpose and qualifying unit. Intersect dated support intervals; overlapping support is a review flag, not proof of duplicate entitlement.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. repeat.
QUEUE Age due date and response
Decision example. Clear delayed farmer-service requests.
past due = max(0, assessment date − due date), when open
Inputs and units. Received or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed.
Worked example. DEC-DP04-004 — Laggala Pallegama — agrarian services, 2025. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Calendar age = 91 days. Without Received or defect observed, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Open age = assessment date − received date. Days past due = max(0, assessment date − recorded due date) for open cases. Show documented critical conditions separately.
Limits. Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. queue.
FRESH Observation freshness and completeness
Decision example. Repair incomplete soil and weather observation coverage.
completeness = 100 × valid received observations ÷ scheduled observations
Inputs and units. Expected observations in the window (observations); Distinct valid observations (observations); Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval (days).
Worked example. DEC-DP02-014 — Laggala Pallegama — monitoring network, 2025. Expected observations in the window = 30 observations; Distinct valid observations = 24 observations; Latest valid observation = 2025-06-28; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Required observation interval = 1 days. Completeness = 80 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 6 observations. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Expected observations in the window = 31. Completeness = 77.419 %. Without Expected observations in the window, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Completeness = 100 × valid / expected. Age = assessment date − latest valid observation; compare with the explicitly supplied interval.
Limits. A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. fresh.
BALANCE Physical mass or water balance
Decision example. Review storage consequences of proposed releases.
closing storage = opening + inflows − releases/transfers − other outflows
Inputs and units. Opening storage (m³); All measured inflows and transfers in (m³); Releases and transfers out (m³); Evaporation and other outflows (m³); Independently observed closing storage (m³).
Worked example. DEC-DP05-004 — Laggala Pallegama — reservoir operation, 2025. Opening storage = 160,000 m³; All measured inflows and transfers in = 48,000 m³; Releases and transfers out = 35,000 m³; Evaporation and other outflows = 9,000 m³; Independently observed closing storage = 163,500 m³. Calculated closing storage = 164,000 m³; Observed minus calculated closing = -500 m³. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Opening storage = 160,001. Calculated closing storage = 164,001 m³. Without Opening storage, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Calculated closing = opening + inflows − releases/transfers − other outflows. Residual = independently observed closing − calculated closing.
Limits. Use the same physical boundary, period and units. A residual is a reconciliation issue, not automatically a measured loss.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. cash balance, balance, aquifer balance, cash timing.
SURVIVAL Cohort survival and retention
Decision example. Target maintenance to poorly surviving planting cohorts.
Calculation or steps. lower = 100 × survivors ÷ cohort; upper = 100 × (survivors + unknown) ÷ cohort.
Inputs and units. Original cohort (plants); Known surviving original members (plants); Known failed original members (plants); Original members with unknown follow-up (plants); Replacements in a separate cohort (plants).
Worked example. DEC-DP07-003 — Laggala Pallegama — restoration survival, 2025. Original cohort = 450 plants; Known surviving original members = 351 plants; Known failed original members = 70 plants; Original members with unknown follow-up = 29 plants; Replacements in a separate cohort = 18 plants. Confirmed survival lower bound = 78 %; Survival upper bound = 84.444 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 plants. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Known surviving original members = 352; Known failed original members = 69. Confirmed survival lower bound = 78.222 %. Without Original cohort, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Lower =100 × known survivors / original cohort. Upper =100 × (known survivors + unknown) / original cohort. Survivors + known failures + unknown = original cohort; replacements do not enter it.
Limits. These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. survival, business retention, followup retention.
ANOMALY Departure from a reviewed reference
Decision example. Issue evidence packages for local agricultural advisories.
departure = current observation − comparable baseline
Inputs and units. Comparable seasonal rainfall reference (mm); Observed seasonal rainfall (mm).
Worked example. DEC-DP02-013 — Laggala Pallegama — agroclimate advice, 2025. Comparable seasonal rainfall reference = 120 mm; Observed seasonal rainfall = 84 mm. Difference = -36 mm; Relative change = -30 %. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Comparable seasonal rainfall reference = 121. Difference = -37 mm. Without Comparable seasonal rainfall reference, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Later/comparison value minus Comparable reference value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Comparable reference value when the earlier value is positive.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. anomaly.
SPELL Dry or wet spell duration
Decision example. Identify prolonged rainfall spells requiring advisory review.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
dry run continues only across observed consecutive dry days
Inputs and units. Observation day; Daily rainfall (mm); Example dry-day threshold (mm); Day classified as dry when rainfall.
Worked example. DEC-DP08-002 — Rattota rainfall station scenario, 2025. Observation day = 2025-06-01; Daily rainfall = 4 mm; Example dry-day threshold = 1 mm; Day classified as dry when rainfall = < threshold. Daily rainfall = 4 mm. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Daily rainfall = 4.04. Daily rainfall = 4.04 mm. Without Observation day, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Count consecutive dated observations satisfying the stated rainfall rule. Missing days interrupt a spell; do not count unknown rain as zero.
Limits. The example threshold is configurable and is not an official warning criterion.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. spell.
SPI Standardized precipitation index
Decision example. Determine where historical rainfall supports SPI analysis.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
completeness = 100 × valid monthly observations ÷ expected observations
Inputs and units. Complete comparable baseline years (years); Expected monthly observations (observations); Valid comparable monthly observations (observations); Proposed accumulation period; Station history and series homogeneity checked; Distribution fit and zero-rainfall handling documented.
Worked example. DEC-DP08-004 — Laggala Pallegama — drought monitoring, 2025. Complete comparable baseline years = 30 years; Expected monthly observations = 360 observations; Valid comparable monthly observations = 350 observations; Proposed accumulation period = 3 months; Station history and series homogeneity checked = Missing; Distribution fit and zero-rainfall handling documented = Missing. Baseline completeness = 97.222 %; Missing monthly observations = 10 observations. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Valid comparable monthly observations = 351. Baseline completeness = 97.5 %. Without Complete comparable baseline years, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Show valid/expected monthly coverage and complete baseline years. Assess distribution fit, zero rainfall, timescale and homogeneity separately; no SPI is invented.
Limits. WMO recommends a long rainfall record, ideally at least30 years. Readiness counts alone do not validate the fitted SPI method.
Method sources. Validation required. S82 — WMO No 1090; SPI calculation and interpretation guidance; DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. spi.
LOSS Loss measurement by supply chain stage
Decision example. Select crop stages needing loss-reduction measures.
Calculation or steps. unaccounted = input − output − by-products − closing stock − transfers out; share = 100 × unaccounted ÷ input.
Inputs and units. Batch input on stated moisture basis (kg); Saleable output (kg); Usable by-product (kg); Closing stock (kg); Documented transfers out (kg).
Worked example. DEC-DP03-014 — Laggala Pallegama — post-harvest loss, 2025. Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,200 kg; Saleable output = 970 kg; Usable by-product = 85 kg; Closing stock = 45 kg; Documented transfers out = 20 kg. Unaccounted physical share = 6.667 %; Unaccounted mass = 80 kg. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,201. Unaccounted physical share = 6.744 %. Without Batch input on stated moisture basis, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Unaccounted = input − saleable output − usable by-products − closing stock − transfers out. Share =100 × unaccounted / input.
Limits. Use a consistent moisture basis and process boundary. Unaccounted mass is not automatically avoidable food loss or spoilage.
Method sources. Validation required. S57 — Full method locator not established; DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. loss.
MARGIN Enterprise gross margin and break even
Decision example. Identify crop enterprises with weak gross margins.
gross margin = saleable quantity × realized unit price − variable cost
Inputs and units. Saleable output (kg); Realized price (LKR/kg); Variable costs (LKR); Matching crop area (ha); Crop and saleable-output basis.
Worked example. DEC-DP03-017 — Laggala Pallegama — farm income, 2025. Saleable output = 4,500 kg; Realized price = 110 LKR/kg; Variable costs = 360,000 LKR; Matching crop area = 1 ha; Crop and saleable-output basis = Paddy rough rice / fictional one-hectare crop enterprise / same season. Enterprise gross margin = 135,000 LKR; Gross margin per hectare = 135,000 LKR/ha; Variable-cost break-even price = 80 LKR/kg. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Saleable output = 4,501. Enterprise gross margin = 135,110 LKR. Without Saleable output, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Gross margin = saleable output × realized price − variable costs. Divide by matching hectares for margin/ha; variable-cost break-even price = variable costs / output.
Limits. Keep fixed costs, family-labour opportunity cost, taxes and financing identifiable. Gross margin is not net profit. Crop, prices and costs are fictional coherent enterprise assumptions. Gross margin excludes fixed and financing costs; it is not household income or net profit.
Method sources. Verified published formula. Enterprise gross margin. Institution publication — Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Chapter 4, Gross margin and section 4.7.1. https://www.fao.org/4/W7365E/w7365e07.htm. Per-hectare and variable-cost break-even outputs are algebraic rearrangements. Local costs, prices and interpretation still need confirmation.
Domain variants. margin.
SUITABILITY Expert reviewed suitability
Decision example. Shortlist land uses compatible with local conditions.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
evidence gaps = count(missing or conflicting required items)
Inputs and units. Land polygon; Land polygon evidence reference; soil depth; soil depth evidence reference; slope degrees; slope degrees evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; water access; water access evidence reference; crop requirements; crop requirements evidence reference.
Worked example. DEC-DP01-005 — Laggala Pallegama — agricultural suitability, 2025. Land polygon = Missing; Land polygon evidence reference = ; soil depth = Documented; soil depth evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; slope degrees = Documented; slope degrees evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rainfall = Documented; rainfall evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; water access = Documented; water access evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; crop requirements = Documented; crop requirements evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Evidence gaps = 1 items. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Land polygon = Documented; Land polygon evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Evidence gaps = 0 items. Without Land polygon, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.
Limits. Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. suitability.
QUALITY Applicable quality limit comparison
Decision example. Refer nutrient and acidity limitations for agronomic advice.
Calculation or steps. lower bound ≤ matching measured result ≤ upper bound.
Inputs and units. Parameter and applicable use; Measured result (pH); Example lower comparison bound (pH); Example upper comparison bound (pH); Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis.
Worked example. DEC-DP02-005 — Laggala Pallegama — soil fertility, 2025. Parameter and applicable use = Soil pH; Measured result = 6.2 pH; Example lower comparison bound = 5.5 pH; Example upper comparison bound = 7.5 pH; Original and limit unit = pH; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Measured value = 6.2 pH. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Measured result = 6.262. Measured value = 6.262 pH. Without Parameter and applicable use, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Compare the measured value only with matching parameter, unit, use and averaging period. Retain limit source/version and censored-result status.
Limits. Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. quality.
SCHEDULE Resource constrained scheduling
Decision example. Schedule priority land-use map updates.
duration = end date − start date; check windows and conflicts
Inputs and units. Required resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort (hours); Available resource effort (hours); Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites.
Worked example. DEC-DP01-020 — Laggala Pallegama — survey scheduling, 2025. 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. Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Required resource effort = 16.16. Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Without Required resource, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. 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.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. schedule.
YIELD Productivity and efficiency
Decision example. Select improvements for low water productivity.
Calculation or steps productivity = matching output ÷ resource input; multiply by 100 only for the declared output share variants.
Inputs and units. Saleable crop output (kg); Matching irrigation water input (m³).
Worked example. DEC-DP02-010 — Laggala Pallegama — on-farm irrigation, 2025. Saleable crop output = 19,780 kg; Matching irrigation water input = 7,200 m³. Crop water productivity = 2.747 kg/m³. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Saleable crop output = 19,781. Crop water productivity = 2.747 kg/m³. Without Saleable crop output, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Saleable crop output / Matching irrigation water input, for the same product, process and period.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. water productivity, crop yield, pump energy, drilling, labour, export unit value, resource efficiency, mass conversion, process energy.
DISTRIBUTION Distribution and outlier review
Decision example. Identify markets requiring closer price-distribution study.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
mean = sum(x) ÷ n; sample SD = sqrt(sum((x − mean)^2) ÷ (n − 1))
Inputs and units. Comparable observation (LKR/kg).
Worked example. DEC-DP25-004 — Laggala Pallegama — market comparisons, 2025. Comparable observation = 104 LKR/kg. Observed value = 104 LKR/kg. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Comparable observation = 105. Observed value = 105 LKR/kg. Without Comparable observation, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Display observations in dated order. Sample SD uses n−1; coefficient of variation = 100 × SD / positive mean.
Limits. Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. distribution.
CONCENTRATION Concentration and dependence
Decision example. Identify excessive dependence on few export markets.
Calculation or steps concentration = sum of squared fractional category shares.
Inputs and units. Recorded export value in this distinct destination (LKR).
Worked example. DEC-DP26-002 — India, 2025. Recorded export value in this distinct destination = 90,000,000 LKR. Category amount = 90,000,000 LKR; Share of selected total = 45 %. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Recorded export value in this distinct destination = 90,000,001. Concentration (0–1) = 0.289. Without Recorded export value in this distinct destination, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Category share = 100 × category amount / total compatible category amounts. HHI = sum of squared fractional shares, displayed on a 0–1 scale.
Limits. Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy. The fictional selected spice-export portfolio is not a national export total. No institutional concentration threshold is supplied.
Method sources. Verified published component. HHI concentration component. Government publication — United States Department of Justice. Definition and four-firm worked example. https://www.justice.gov/atr/herfindahl-hirschman-index. The screen uses fractional shares on a 0–1 scale, equivalent to the published percentage-share score divided by 10000. Local exposure categories and policy thresholds are not verified by this source.
Domain variants. concentration.
MATCH Supply demand compatibility matching
Decision example. Match verified exporter offers with buyer requirements.
supply difference = available uncommitted supply − requested demand
Inputs and units. Offered product and grade; Required product and grade; Available uncommitted quantity (kg); Required quantity (kg); Supply available from; Supply available until; Delivery window begins; Delivery window ends; Required quality, rights and conditions.
Worked example. DEC-DP26-008 — Laggala Pallegama — buyer matching, 2025. Offered product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Required product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Available uncommitted quantity = 1,200 kg; Required quantity = 1,500 kg; Supply available from = 2025-06-01; Supply available until = 2025-06-20; Delivery window begins = 2025-06-05; Delivery window ends = 2025-06-18; Required quality, rights and conditions = Met. Supply minus demand = -300 kg. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Available uncommitted quantity = 1,201. Supply minus demand = -299 kg. Without Offered product and grade, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Compare the same specification and unit, uncommitted quantity and overlapping delivery windows. Keep mandatory quality and use conditions explicit.
Limits. A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. match, human match, plot match.
CAPACITY Capacity gap assessment
Decision example. Allocate staff to agrarian centres with workload gaps.
capacity balance = usable staffed capacity − required capacity
Inputs and units. Demand in the selected period (staff hours); Rated capacity for that period (staff hours); Unavailable or restricted capacity (staff hours).
Worked example. DEC-DP04-014 — Laggala Pallegama — service centres, 2025. 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 minus demand = -15 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Demand in the selected period = 151. Usable capacity minus demand = -16 staff hours. Without Demand in the selected period, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Usable capacity = rated capacity − documented unavailable capacity. Surplus/shortfall = usable − matching demand.
Limits. Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. capacity.
RISK Reviewed risk and control assessment
Decision example. Prepare response options from authorized hydrological evidence.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
evidence gaps = count(missing or conflicting required items)
Inputs and units. River levels; River levels evidence reference; official forecast; official forecast evidence reference; flood exposure; flood exposure evidence reference; warning protocol; warning protocol evidence reference; evacuation constraints; evacuation constraints evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient.
Worked example. DEC-DP05-006 — Laggala Pallegama — flood readiness, 2025. River levels = Missing; River levels evidence reference = ; official forecast = Documented; official forecast evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; flood exposure = Documented; flood exposure evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; warning protocol = Documented; warning protocol evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; evacuation constraints = Documented; evacuation constraints evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Evidence gaps = 1 items. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. River levels = Documented; River levels evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Evidence gaps = 0 items. Without River levels, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.
Limits. Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. risk.
INSPECT Inspection and evidence checklist
Decision example. Follow up incomplete conservation works.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
evidence gaps = count(missing or conflicting required items)
Inputs and units. Work ID; Work ID evidence reference; approved design; approved design evidence reference; inspection items; inspection items evidence reference; photographs; photographs evidence reference; completion evidence; completion evidence evidence reference.
Worked example. DEC-DP02-012 — Laggala Pallegama — conservation inspection, 2025. Work ID = Missing; Work ID evidence reference = ; approved design = Documented; approved design evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection items = Documented; inspection items evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; photographs = Documented; photographs evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; completion evidence = Documented; completion evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Evidence gaps = 1 items. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Work ID = Documented; Work ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Evidence gaps = 0 items. Without Work ID, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.
Limits. Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. inspect.
ELIGIBILITY Rules based referral for authorized determination
Decision example. Refer land-conversion applications for determination.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
evidence gaps = count(missing or conflicting required items)
Inputs and units. Application ID; Application ID evidence reference; current use; current use evidence reference; proposed use; proposed use evidence reference; ownership evidence; ownership evidence evidence reference; applicable rules; applicable rules evidence reference; objections; objections evidence reference.
Worked example. DEC-DP01-006 — Laggala Pallegama — land conversion, 2025. Application ID = Missing; Application ID evidence reference = ; current use = Documented; current use evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; proposed use = Documented; proposed use evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; ownership evidence = Documented; ownership evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; applicable rules = Documented; applicable rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; objections = Documented; objections evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Evidence gaps = 1 items. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Application ID = Documented; Application ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Evidence gaps = 0 items. Without Application ID, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.
Limits. Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. eligibility.
FINANCE Discounted cash flow appraisal
Decision example. Appraise reservoir rehabilitation cash-flow alternatives.
Calculation or steps NPV = sum of annual net cash flow ÷ (1 + discount rate fraction) raised to the year, for years 1 to n, less initial investment.
Inputs and units. Initial investment (LKR); Net cash flow year1 (LKR); Net cash flow year2 (LKR); Net cash flow year3 (LKR); Net cash flow year4 (LKR); Net cash flow year5 (LKR); Residual value at end of year5 (LKR); Example discount rate (%).
Worked example. DEC-DP05-017 — Base cash-flow scenario, 2025. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Initial investment = 2,400,001. Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Without Initial investment, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. NPV = −initial investment + sum of year1…5 net cash flows discounted at the stated annual rate, including residual value once in year5.
Limits. Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows.
Method sources. Verified published formula. Discounted cash-flow NPV. Institution publication — Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value. https://www.fao.org/4/w8212e/w8212e06.htm. The five-year horizon, discount rate and cash assumptions are local settings. Verification does not approve an investment or loan.
Domain variants. finance.
DEBT Debt service assessment
Decision example. Assess debt-service coverage under lender-defined scenarios.
debt service coverage = cash available for debt service ÷ scheduled principal and interest
Inputs and units. Cash available for debt service (LKR); Scheduled principal for same period (LKR); Scheduled interest for same period (LKR); Repayment and cash-flow period.
Worked example. DEC-DP38-002 — Laggala Pallegama — repayment capacity, 2025. Cash available for debt service = 860,000 LKR; Scheduled principal for same period = 500,000 LKR; Scheduled interest for same period = 120,000 LKR; Repayment and cash-flow period = Sample annual period. Debt-service coverage = 1.387 ratio; Cash after scheduled debt service = 240,000 LKR. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Cash available for debt service = 860,001. Debt-service coverage = 1.387 ratio. Without Cash available for debt service, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Debt-service coverage = cash available / (principal + interest) for the same period. Zero scheduled debt has no coverage ratio.
Limits. No lender covenant, credit decision, borrower eligibility or legal consequence is inferred. Seasonal repayment timing and downside scenarios remain explicit.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. debt.
FUNDING Funding and commitment reconciliation
Decision example. Reconcile provincial agriculture funding and verified activities.
funding gap = financing need − confirmed commitments
Inputs and units. Approved financing need (LKR); Confirmed commitments (LKR); Funds actually disbursed (LKR); Verified eligible expenditure (LKR).
Worked example. DEC-DP10-017 — Laggala Pallegama — budget delivery, 2025. 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 = 850,000 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Approved financing need = 3,500,001. Unfunded need = 850,001 LKR. Without Approved financing need, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Unfunded = need − commitments. Undisbursed = commitments − disbursements. Unspent = disbursements − eligible spending.
Limits. Keep commitments, cash receipts, expenditure and verified physical outputs separate. Negative balances flag overcommitment or reconciliation; no automatic accounting adjustment.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. funding.
CARBON Carbon stock and stock change assessment
Decision example. Review inventory evidence for carbon-stock estimates.
carbon stock change = (current carbon density − baseline carbon density) × inventory area
Inputs and units. Earlier carbon density (t C/ha); Later carbon density (t C/ha); Same inventory area (ha); Included pools and allometry references.
Worked example. DEC-DP07-013 — Laggala Pallegama — forest carbon, 2025. Earlier carbon density = 100 t C/ha; Later carbon density = 90 t C/ha; Same inventory area = 85 ha; Included pools and allometry references = Sample matching biomass pools; source model required. Carbon stock change = -850 t C; Carbon-density change = -10 t C/ha. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Earlier carbon density = 101. Carbon stock change = -935 t C. Without Earlier carbon density, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. (Later carbon density − earlier carbon density) × same inventory area, with identical pools, method and boundaries.
Limits. Inventory plots, allometry and uncertainty remain required evidence. Stock change is not an issued carbon credit, additionality test or payable service.
Method sources. Verified published component. Carbon stock-difference component. Institution publication — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Section 2.3.1.1, equation 2.8, stock-difference method. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_02_Ch2_Generic.pdf. The screen reports the period total. IPCC annualisation requires elapsed years. Pools, inventory inputs and local application still need confirmation.
Domain variants. carbon.
SOILCARBON Soil carbon stock comparison
Decision example. Select sites for comparable soil-carbon monitoring.
Calculation or steps soil carbon stock = carbon percent ÷ 100 × bulk density × depth × 10000 × (1 − coarse fragment percent ÷ 100).
Inputs and units. Soil organic carbon (%); Fine-earth bulk-density basis (t/m³); Sample depth (m); Coarse-fragment volume fraction (%); Sampling depth, design and density convention.
Worked example. DEC-DP02-004 — Laggala Pallegama — soil carbon, 2025. Soil organic carbon = 1.8 %; Fine-earth bulk-density basis = 1.25 t/m³; Sample depth = 0.3 m; Coarse-fragment volume fraction = 12 %; Sampling depth, design and density convention = Sample matched depth and fine-earth convention. Soil-carbon stock = 59.4 t C/ha. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Soil organic carbon = 1.818. Soil-carbon stock = 59.994 t C/ha. Without Soil organic carbon, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. (Organic carbon% /100) × bulk density × depth ×10000 × (1−coarse% /100). Confirm that the density and coarse-fragment conventions are mutually consistent.
Limits. A carbon concentration is not a stock. Change comparisons require consistent depth/mass, sampling, density convention and uncertainty review.
Method sources. Verified published formula. Soil-carbon stock with volume correction. Institution publication — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Section 4.3.3.5.4, equation 4.3.3, printed page 4.106, PDF page 18. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf_files/Chp4/Chp4_3_Projects.pdf. The screen converts carbon percent to a fraction and uses the published coarse-fragment volume convention. Sampling and bulk-density conventions still need confirmation.
Domain variants. soilcarbon.
BIODIVERSITY Comparable biodiversity assessment
Decision example. Select comparable forest biodiversity surveys.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
display observed species richness alongside survey effort
Inputs and units. Observed distinct species (species); Survey effort (hours); Survey protocol and version; Survey season and taxonomic scope; All planned survey visits completed.
Worked example. DEC-DP07-018 — Laggala Pallegama — biodiversity monitoring, 2025. Observed distinct species = 28 species; Survey effort = 18 hours; Survey protocol and version = Sample protocol1; Survey season and taxonomic scope = Sample matched season / taxon group; All planned survey visits completed = Yes. Observed richness = 28 species; Recorded effort = 18 hours. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Observed distinct species = 29. Observed richness = 29 species. Without Observed distinct species, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Show distinct observed species with survey effort, protocol, season and completed visits. No correction for detection is silently inferred.
Limits. Observed richness is not population size or occupancy. Comparable effort alone does not remove detection bias or establish a biodiversity trend.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-GBIF — Version1.0.2, sections5.4 to5.7 and7.3; DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. biodiversity.
IMPACT Outcome and attribution evaluation
Decision example. Evaluate conservation practice outcomes.
Calculation or steps difference in differences = (treatment after − treatment before) − (comparison after − comparison before).
Inputs and units. Treatment Measured runoff before (mm/season); Treatment Measured runoff after (mm/season); Comparison Measured runoff before (mm/season); Comparison Measured runoff after (mm/season); Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis.
Worked example. DEC-DP02-016 — Laggala Pallegama — demonstration trials, 2025. Treatment Measured runoff before = 42 mm/season; Treatment Measured runoff after = 59 mm/season; Comparison Measured runoff before = 39 mm/season; Comparison Measured runoff after = 46 mm/season; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Measured runoff /example matching definition1. Difference in changes = 10 mm/season. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Treatment Measured runoff before = 42.42. Difference in changes = 9.58 mm/season. Without Treatment Measured runoff before, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. (Treatment after−before) − (comparison after−before), using the same outcome definition and periods.
Limits. The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence.
Method sources. Verified published formula. Difference-in-differences arithmetic. Institution publication — World Bank. Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/698441474029568469/pdf/Impact-evaluation-in-practice.pdf. The formula is verified. Causal interpretation still requires a defensible study design, comparison and assumptions.
Domain variants. impact, study design.
PRICE Comparable market price analysis
Decision example. Investigate large comparable farmgate wholesale and retail spreads.
net quote return = sell × (1 − loss fraction) − buy − transfer cost
Inputs and units. Comparable purchase quotation (LKR/kg); Comparable selling quotation (LKR/kg); Non-overlapping transfer costs (LKR/kg); Expected saleable mass loss (%); Product, grade and price basis.
Worked example. DEC-DP25-001 — Laggala Pallegama — price spreads, 2025. Comparable purchase quotation = 180 LKR/kg; Comparable selling quotation = 222 LKR/kg; Non-overlapping transfer costs = 20 LKR/kg; Expected saleable mass loss = 5 %; Product, grade and price basis = Tomato / same stated grade / per purchased kilogram. Quoted net return per purchased kg = 10.9 LKR/kg; Unadjusted quoted spread = 42 LKR/kg. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Comparable purchase quotation = 181. Quoted net return per purchased kg = 9.9 LKR/kg. Without Comparable purchase quotation, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Quoted spread = sell−buy. Net scenario return per purchased kg = sell×(1−loss%/100)−buy−matching transfer costs.
Limits. Use matching grade, price date, currency, mass basis and payment terms. This quotation scenario excludes unlisted costs and is not realized profit or a forecast.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. price, buyer offer, procurement offer.
VOLATILITY Price variability and seasonality
Decision example. Prioritize commodities with unusual price variability.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
sample CV = 100 × sample SD ÷ positive mean
Inputs and units. Comparable observation (LKR/kg).
Worked example. DEC-DP25-002 — Laggala Pallegama — price volatility, 2025. Comparable observation = 104 LKR/kg. Observed value = 104 LKR/kg. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Comparable observation = 105. Observed value = 105 LKR/kg. Without Comparable observation, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Display observations in dated order. Sample SD uses n−1; coefficient of variation = 100 × SD / positive mean.
Limits. Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend.
Method sources. Verified published formula. Sample coefficient of variation. Government publication — National Institute of Standards and Technology United States. Description, sample coefficient of variation and ratio-scale restrictions. https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/refman2/auxillar/coefvari.htm. Use a meaningful zero and positive mean. Local series selection and decision limits still need confirmation.
Domain variants. volatility.
INVENTORY Stock expiry and reorder planning
Decision example. Plan seed procurement against seasonal demand.
available stock = usable stock − confirmed commitments
Inputs and units. Physical stock (kg seed); Quarantined stock (kg seed); Expired stock (kg seed); Committed usable stock (kg seed); Additional demand (kg seed); Supplier lead time (days); Remaining shelf life of usable stock (days).
Worked example. DEC-DP03-010 — Laggala Pallegama — seed supply, 2025. Physical stock = 1,200 kg seed; Quarantined stock = 100 kg seed; Expired stock = 50 kg seed; Committed usable stock = 740 kg seed; Additional demand = 500 kg seed; Supplier lead time = 14 days; Remaining shelf life of usable stock = 30 days. Uncommitted usable stock = 310 kg seed; Additional demand gap = 190 kg seed. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Physical stock = 1,201. Uncommitted usable stock = 311 kg seed. Without Physical stock, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Usable = physical−quarantined−expired (non-overlapping groups). Available = usable−commitments. Additional gap = max(0, new demand−available).
Limits. Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. inventory.
MAINTENANCE Asset maintenance prioritization
Decision example. Prioritize repair packages within engineering and budget limits.
past due = max(0, assessment date − due date), when open
Inputs and units. Received or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed.
Worked example. DEC-DP05-009 — Laggala Pallegama — canal rehabilitation, 2025. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Calendar age = 91 days. Without Received or defect observed, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Open age = assessment date − received date. Days past due = max(0, assessment date − recorded due date) for open cases. Show documented critical conditions separately.
Limits. Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. maintenance.
FLOW Process progression and conversion
Decision example. Follow up farmers who received technical guidance.
completion share = 100 × completed cases ÷ entered cases
Inputs and units. Distinct farmers receiving the stated guidance (cases); Those farmers reached at follow-up (cases); Those farmers with the stated verified follow-up outcome (cases); Farmers with unknown follow-up (cases).
Worked example. DEC-DP03-019 — Laggala Pallegama — advisory effectiveness, 2025. Distinct farmers receiving the stated guidance = 180 cases; Those farmers reached at follow-up = 132 cases; Those farmers with the stated verified follow-up outcome = 96 cases; Farmers with unknown follow-up = 12 cases. Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Distinct farmers receiving the stated guidance = 181. Verified completion share = 53.039 %. Without Distinct farmers receiving the stated guidance, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. 100 × verified completed members / original unique cohort. Keep unknown follow-up separate; stages are nested, not independent populations.
Limits. Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The follow-up outcome and observation window must be recorded; receipt of advice is not adoption. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. flow.
ROUTE Access and logistics comparison
Decision example. Compare access improvements for isolated planning areas.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
display supplied route distance, travel time and vehicle capacity; no route is calculated here
Inputs and units. Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey (km); Supplied journey duration; not calculated here (minutes); Usable vehicle/team capacity (units); Required capacity (units); Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window.
Worked example. DEC-DP01-014 — Laggala Pallegama — service access, 2025. 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. Estimated travel time = 65 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Supplied journey duration; not calculated here = 75. Estimated travel time = 75 minutes. Without Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Compare supplied route times/distances, usable capacity and documented access/window constraints. Display feasible candidates; no route optimization is implied.
Limits. 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.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. route.
PES Environmental service verification and payment proposal
Decision example. Prepare payment proposals only from approved verified conditions.
annual proposal = min(accepted hectares × annual rate, annual cap)
Inputs and units. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Area meeting the annual agreement conditions (ha); Illustrative annual rate per accepted hectare (LKR/ha/year); Annual cap for this agreement (LKR/year); Amount already paid for these same annual conditions (LKR); Independent field-check record documented; Rights and voluntary agreement documented; Funding confirmation documented; Field-check and rate references; Confirmed funds available for this annual proposal (LKR).
Worked example. DEC-DP39-011 — Laggala Pallegama farmer group, 2025. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Area meeting the annual agreement conditions = 20 ha; Illustrative annual rate per accepted hectare = 12,500 LKR/ha/year; Annual cap for this agreement = 300,000 LKR/year; Amount already paid for these same annual conditions = 0 LKR; Independent field-check record documented = Documented; Rights and voluntary agreement documented = Documented; Funding confirmation documented = Missing; Field-check and rate references = Example field record / draft annual rate schedule 1; Confirmed funds available for this annual proposal = 200,000 LKR. Calculated annual proposal before payments = 250,000 LKR; Proposal less amount already paid = 250,000 LKR; Amount ready to refer for authorisation = Unavailable LKR. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Area meeting the annual agreement conditions = 21. Calculated annual proposal before payments = 262,500 LKR. Without Agreement and version, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Annual proposal = min(accepted hectares × annual rate, annual cap). Subtract payments for the same agreement and year. Refer an amount only when required evidence is documented. This screen makes no payment.
Limits. Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.
Method sources. Validation required. S60 — Full method locator not established; S61 — Full method locator not established; DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples; PES-FAO — ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity.
PES decisions. DEC-DP39-002 checks physical work only. DEC-DP39-011 calculates the proposal. The 20 separate questions and required evidence are listed in section 6 4 and the decision register.
ACCOUNT Physical and monetary ecosystem accounting
Decision example. Prepare separate physical service accounts.
closing extent = opening extent + additions − reductions
Inputs and units. Opening ecosystem extent (ha); Extent additions (ha); Extent reductions (ha); Measured service flow in the period (m³/year); Service definition and flow unit; Separate monetary valuation method/price year.
Worked example. DEC-DP12-012 — Laggala Pallegama — ecosystem services, 2025. Opening ecosystem extent = 750 ha; Extent additions = 92 ha; Extent reductions = 48 ha; Measured service flow in the period = 120,000 m³/year; Service definition and flow unit = Fictional annual water-provisioning flow to the stated users / m³/year / same accounting boundary; Separate monetary valuation method/price year = Not provided. Closing ecosystem extent = 794 ha; Physical service flow = 120,000 m³/year. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Opening ecosystem extent = 751. Closing ecosystem extent = 795 ha. Without Opening ecosystem extent, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Closing extent = opening + additions − reductions. Record the period service flow separately; do not add a flow to an asset stock or multiply by an arbitrary PES rate.
Limits. Keep extent, condition, physical service flows and monetary accounts distinct. A defensible valuation method, price year and accounting boundary are needed for monetary results. Ecosystem extent in hectares and annual water-provisioning flow in cubic metres are separate accounts. A measured flow does not identify its ecosystem contribution or assign a monetary value.
Method sources. Validation required. S58 — Full method locator not established; DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. account.
CONSENT Consultation and unresolved condition review
Decision example. Resolve unresolved tenure objections before planning.
response share = 100 × participants responding ÷ invited participants
Inputs and units. Distinct relevant people invited (people); People who responded (people); Unresolved issues (issues); Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible.
Worked example. DEC-DP01-011 — Laggala Pallegama — tenure conflicts, 2025. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Response share = 70.833 %. Without Distinct relevant people invited, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. 100 × distinct respondents / invited people. Record unresolved issues individually; one respondent may raise several issues.
Limits. Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. consent.
ACCESS Permission and publication review
Decision example. Check source rights and approval before publishing products.
evidence gaps = count(missing or conflicting required items)
Inputs and units. Product version; Product version evidence reference; forecast validity; forecast validity evidence reference; review; review evidence reference; publication authority; publication authority evidence reference; license; license evidence reference; audience; audience evidence reference.
Worked example. DEC-DP08-020 — Laggala Pallegama — forecast publication, 2025. Product version = Missing; Product version evidence reference = ; forecast validity = Documented; forecast validity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; review = Documented; review evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; publication authority = Documented; publication authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; license = Documented; license evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; audience = Documented; audience evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Evidence gaps = 1 items. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Product version = Documented; Product version evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Evidence gaps = 0 items. Without Product version, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.
Limits. Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. access.
METADATA Dataset fitness and interoperability
Decision example. Correct incomplete land-use layer metadata.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
evidence gaps = count(missing or conflicting required items)
Inputs and units. Layer ID; Layer ID evidence reference; scale; scale evidence reference; coordinate system; coordinate system evidence reference; classification edition; classification edition evidence reference; owner; owner evidence reference; survey date; survey date evidence reference.
Worked example. DEC-DP01-019 — Laggala Pallegama — map documentation, 2025. Layer ID = Missing; Layer ID evidence reference = ; scale = Documented; scale evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; coordinate system = Documented; coordinate system evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; classification edition = Documented; classification edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; owner = Documented; owner evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; survey date = Documented; survey date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Evidence gaps = 1 items. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Layer ID = Documented; Layer ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Evidence gaps = 0 items. Without Layer ID, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.
Limits. Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. metadata.
REPRODUCE Reproducibility and result verification
Decision example. Review reproducibility of soil and land assessments.
reproduction difference = reproduced result − expected result
Inputs and units. Earlier/source value (t/ha/year); Independently reproduced value (t/ha/year); Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance (t/ha/year); Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer.
Worked example. DEC-DP02-020 — Laggala Pallegama — model assurance, 2025. Earlier/source value = 100 t/ha/year; Independently reproduced value = 90 t/ha/year; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable t/ha/year measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 t/ha/year; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Difference = -10 t/ha/year; Relative change = -10 %. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Earlier/source value = 101. Difference = -11 t/ha/year. Without Earlier/source value, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Reproduced minus expected result, within an explicitly supplied absolute tolerance, using the same exact input/method versions and a separate checker. Retain originals, code, parameters and environment evidence.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. reproduce.
CLASSIFY Controlled classification and taxonomy review
Decision example. Reconcile inconsistent land and water system codes.
evidence gaps = count(missing or conflicting required items)
Inputs and units. Source system labels; Source system labels evidence reference; official system registry; official system registry evidence reference; geometry edition; geometry edition evidence reference; steward decisions; steward decisions evidence reference.
Worked example. DEC-DP06-020 — Laggala Pallegama — system reporting, 2025. Source system labels = Missing; Source system labels evidence reference = ; official system registry = Documented; official system registry evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; geometry edition = Documented; geometry edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; steward decisions = Documented; steward decisions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Evidence gaps = 1 items. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Source system labels = Documented; Source system labels evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Evidence gaps = 0 items. Without Source system labels, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.
Limits. Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. classify.
RELIABILITY Service reliability
Decision example. Prioritize aviation meteorological service interruptions.
availability = 100 × (scheduled service time − verified downtime) ÷ scheduled service time
Inputs and units. Scheduled observation window (hours); Union of qualifying outage intervals (hours); Eligible service requests (requests); Failed eligible requests (requests); Measured data-feed transport response time; separate from observation availability (ms).
Worked example. DEC-DP08-015 — Katunayake airport — aviation services scenario, 2025. Scheduled observation window = 168 hours; Union of qualifying outage intervals = 13 hours; Eligible service requests = 1,000 requests; Failed eligible requests = 40 requests; Measured data-feed transport response time; separate from observation availability = 800 ms. Time availability = 92.262 %; Request success = 96 %; Measured response time = 800 ms. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Scheduled observation window = 169. Time availability = 92.308 %. Without Scheduled observation window, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Time availability =100 ×(scheduled−non-overlapping outage)/scheduled. Request success =100 ×(requests−failed)/requests. Response time is a separate measure.
Limits. State maintenance exclusions, operating window, probe, workload and service objective. Observed response time is not a p95 claim unless the percentile is actually measured. These are fictional service-monitoring returns for named airport contexts. No aviation service, warning feed or endpoint is contacted.
Method sources. Validation required. DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. reliability, supply outages.
NRW Non revenue water diagnosis
Decision example. Prioritize systems with large unexplained water balances.
Calculation or steps non revenue water = system input − billed authorized consumption; estimated real loss = input − billed − unbilled authorized use − apparent losses.
Inputs and units. Corrected system input (m³); Billed authorized consumption (m³); Unbilled authorized consumption (m³); Estimated apparent losses (m³).
Worked example. DEC-DP22-001 — Laggala Pallegama — non-revenue water, 2025. Corrected system input = 80,000 m³; Billed authorized consumption = 57,000 m³; Unbilled authorized consumption = 3,200 m³; Estimated apparent losses = 4,500 m³. Non-revenue water = 23,000 m³; NRW share = 28.75 %; Water losses = 19,800 m³; Residual real-loss estimate = 15,300 m³. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Corrected system input = 80,001. Non-revenue water = 23,001 m³. Without Corrected system input, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. NRW=input−billed authorized use. Water losses=NRW−unbilled authorized use. Residual real loss=water losses−estimated apparent losses, only when all components are available.
Limits. NRW is not all leakage. An unknown apparent-loss estimate keeps residual real loss unavailable. Meter uncertainty and matching time/zone boundaries matter.
Method sources. Verified published component. IWA water-balance components. Institution publication — Asian Development Bank. Figure 4, printed page 15; Annex 1 Water Balance Definitions, printed pages 39–41, PDF pages 47–49. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/27473/reducing-nonrevenue-water.pdf. Apparent-loss estimates and the residual real-loss estimate remain local inputs with measurement uncertainty.
Domain variants. billed water, leakage evidence.
STAR Specialist species threat and restoration appraisal
Decision example. Refer candidate conservation actions for specialist threat assessment.
Current rule. Use the exact DOMAIN-1 decision variant; the representative example does not establish all local applications.
evidence gaps = count(missing or conflicting required items)
Inputs and units. Species range; Species range evidence reference; threats; threats evidence reference; action feasibility; action feasibility evidence reference; threat reduction evidence; threat reduction evidence evidence reference; uncertainty; uncertainty evidence reference.
Worked example. DEC-DP19-004 — Laggala Pallegama — threat reduction, 2025. Species range = Missing; Species range evidence reference = ; threats = Documented; threats evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; action feasibility = Documented; action feasibility evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; threat reduction evidence = Documented; threat reduction evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; uncertainty = Documented; uncertainty evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Evidence gaps = 1 items. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Species range = Documented; Species range evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Evidence gaps = 0 items. Without Species range, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.
Limits. Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.
Method sources. Validation required. S71 — Scientific underpinning and approach; full STAR calculation is not implemented; DD-LOCAL — Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples.
Domain variants. star.
SURVEY Design based statistical estimation
Decision example. Select defensible geographic poverty and income comparisons.
Calculation or steps weighted mean = sum of weight × observation ÷ sum of weights.
Inputs and units. Final design weight (weight); Observed variable (LKR/household); Stratum and primary sampling unit.
Worked example. DEC-DP20-002 — Laggala Pallegama — poverty reporting, 2025. Final design weight = 2 weight; Observed variable = 68,000 LKR/household; Stratum and primary sampling unit = Fictional sampling stratum / Laggala Pallegama cluster. Observed variable = 68,000 LKR/household. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Final design weight = 2.02. Weighted mean = 78,678.643. Without Final design weight, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Weighted mean = sum(weight×observation)/sum(weight). Estimated total = sum(weight×observation), only for weights and population coverage suitable for that estimand.
Limits. Retain sampling frame, strata, clusters, nonresponse and calibration. The prototype does not invent complex-design variance, confidence intervals or small-area precision.
Method sources. Verified published component. Weighted estimation component. Institution publication — United Nations Statistics Division. Chapter 9, paragraphs 38 and 39, printed page 9-9, PDF page 417; Chapter 8 weighting. https://unstats.un.org/UNSDWebsite/statcom/session_57/documents/BG-3k-Handbook_on_Surveys_of_Household_and_Individuals-E.pdf. Local weights, population coverage, design variance and ratio-yield interpretation still need confirmation. Positive illustrative weights do not demonstrate every calibration design.
Domain variants. weighted proportion, survey, survey precision, weighted area production.
FORECAST Forecast verification
Decision example. Review forecast errors before operational changes.
Calculation or steps error = forecast − observed; RMSE = square root of mean squared errors.
Inputs and units. Archived forecast rainfall (mm); Verifying observed rainfall (mm); Forecast lead time (hours); Forecast issue date; Forecast valid date.
Worked example. DEC-DP08-007 — Laggala Pallegama — forecast verification, 2025. Archived forecast rainfall = 48 mm; Verifying observed rainfall = 41.76 mm; Forecast lead time = 24 hours; Forecast issue date = 2025-06-28; Forecast valid date = 2025-06-29. Forecast minus observed = 6.24 mm. Realistic sample data; the exact evidence fields remain in the decision register.
Changed example. Archived forecast rainfall = 48.48. Forecast minus observed = 6.72 mm. Without Archived forecast rainfall, the required result is withheld.
Procedure. Error=forecast−observed. Matched-pair RMSE=sqrt(mean(error²)); MAE=mean(abs(error)); bias=mean(error).
Limits. Match lead, valid interval, location, variable, units and observation quality. Do not verify a forecast against data available when it was issued. This date-level example supports whole-day lead times only. Issuance, verification date and lead must agree; sub-day verification needs timestamps.
Method sources. Verified published formula. Matched-pair RMSE. Government publication — Environment and Climate Change Canada. Displayed RMSE equation and definitions of forecast, observation and verification count. https://weather.gc.ca/verification/scores/rmse_e.html. Local verification periods, observation quality and forecast applicability still need confirmation.
Domain variants. forecast, probability forecast.
4 Retained method references
Method References is the controlled catalogue of all 139 retained definitions. Each row preserves the original formula or procedure, inputs, units, limits and context link. Its category identifies direct publication support or Validation required, with the publisher and method-source locator where checked. Family mappings are candidates only. A published retained method is not implemented merely because a related prototype screen exists.
The source register separates link access from formula support. Official alternatives are now linked for the three previously unavailable entries, so all 33 follow-up entries have readable preferred references. The LUPPD report and FAO guide support planning context; they are not approved replacements for the local divisional manual. Experts must still confirm each selected method, source edition, units and local suitability.
NF012 is an absolute forecast error; VARIANCE is a signed plan difference. NF147 specifies discounted payback, but its linked appraisal and the current cash flow helper use simple or undiscounted payback. NF049 to NF053 and NF055 to NF058 use a water-stress context link that does not establish their methods. NF107 parameter compliance is not the full SDG 6.3.2 water-body indicator. These methods remain separate review questions.
Open all 139 retained method references
5 Sources
Calculation Sources contains all 133 records, original links, checked alternatives, locators and access results. S01 links the LUPPD report hosted by Parliament; NF-SOURCE-04 links FAO planning guidance; NF-SOURCE-12 links a HARTI price bulletin with market, unit and date columns. The original LUPPD manual was not recovered. Local procedure, data rights and method acceptance remain pending in Institution review.
S69 FAO 56: crop evapotranspiration
Published method. FAO 56 Chapter 5 equation 56; ETc = Kc × ETo. Retrieved text for review.
S71 IUCN Species Threat Abatement and Restoration metric
Published specialist method overview. Scientific underpinning and approach; full STAR calculation is not implemented. Retrieved text for review.
S72 IWA non-revenue water management
Published definition. Opening NRW definition; detailed water audit protocol not supplied. Retrieved text for review.
S75 Environment Canada: root mean squared error
Published method. What is Root Mean Square Error; displayed formula. Retrieved text for review.
S76 FAO enterprise and activity budgeting
Published method. Section 4.3.8 Gross margin; section 4.7 Parametric budgeting. Retrieved text for review.
PROTO SHARED prototype calculation and workflow implementation
Project implementation. DecisionSupportModel.spec/project and named model functions in each entry. Read only prototype inspection.
SRS SHARED Software Requirements Specification
Project requirement. Sections 5.4, 10, 12 and named requirement IDs in each rule. Version 1.6.
S78 FAO Irrigation Water Management Training Manual 3
Published method. Chapter 4.4 Irrigation water need of rice; steps 1 to 8. Method text checked.
S79 IPCC 2006 Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 2
Published method. Sections 2.2.3, 2.3.1 and 2.3.3; soil stock guidance printed page 2.37. Method text checked.
S80 USDA Forest Service A guide for predicting sheet and rill erosion on forest land
Historical published method. Universal Soil Loss Equation and Applying the USLE; printed page 2. Historical method text checked; current local calibration not established.
S81 FAO Guidelines for financial economic environmental and social information
Published method. Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return subsections. Method text checked.
S82 WMO Standardized Precipitation Index User Guide
Published method. WMO No 1090; SPI calculation and interpretation guidance. Full guide checked; local fit and baseline pending.
S83 US Department of Justice Herfindahl Hirschman Index
Published definition. Definition of the sum of squared market shares. Definition checked; US legal thresholds do not apply to this project.
S84 NIST Coefficient of Variation
Published definition. Description of sample CV and ratio scale restriction. Definition checked.
S85 Turf area API
Software method. Version 7.2.0 area; square metres. Documentation checked.
S86 Turf distance API
Software method. Version 7.2.0 distance; Haversine method. Documentation checked.
S87 Turf length API
Software method. Version 7.2.0 length; selected units. Documentation checked.
S88 Turf buffer API
Software method. Version 7.2.0 buffer; radius and steps. Documentation checked.
S89 Turf intersect API
Software method. Version 7.2.0 intersect; polygon intersection. Documentation checked.
S90 Turf point in polygon API
Software method. Version 7.2.0 booleanPointInPolygon; boundary option. Documentation checked.
S91 UN Handbook of Surveys on Households and Individuals
Published guidance. Chapter 9 section 9.4.2, equation 9-16, printed page 9-19 (PDF page 427); Chapter 8 weighting; Final Draft. Weighting guidance checked; draft status retained.
S92 World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition
Published method. Chapter 7 Difference in Differences. Method text checked.
Specific source limits remain open: S16 needs custodian confirmation of jurisdiction; S51 does not establish the intended budgeting guide; S72 gives the NRW definition but not the full utility audit protocol. S80 is a historical USLE source, not a current local calibration. The WMO SPI guide and IUCN STAR overview do not make those full methods implemented in the prototype.
6 Approval and acceptance
Use published methods as their documented basis. Check the exact source and the copied calculation once. Ask the client or expert to confirm only local use, project choices and new or changed rules. Review each shared method once and list where it is used.
Published methods and sources
The core methods below already have a published basis. They do not need to be proved again for every screen. Their local inputs, settings, suitability and intended use remain subject to the confirmation list below. A published reference does not mean that the prototype implements the full method.
Published method | Publication and locator | Local use |
|---|---|---|
Sheet and rill erosion EROSION, NF023 | S80 USDA Forest Service A guide for predicting sheet and rill erosion on forest land. Universal Soil Loss Equation and Applying the USLE; printed page 2 NF-SOURCE-03 FAO Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation toolbox. FAO RUSLE toolbox: equation A = R K L S C P and factor definitions | The USDA source is historical. Confirm current local factors and suitability. |
Enterprise gross margin MARGIN | S76 FAO enterprise and activity budgeting. Section 4.3.8 Gross margin; section 4.7 Parametric budgeting | Confirm which revenue and variable costs are included. |
Net present value FINANCE | S81 FAO Guidelines for financial economic environmental and social information. Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return subsections | Confirm cash flows, price basis and discount rate. |
Soil carbon stock SOILCARBON, NF034 | S79 IPCC 2006 Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 2. Sections 2.2.3, 2.3.1 and 2.3.3; soil stock guidance printed page 2.37 | Confirm sampling, depth, bulk density, units and coarse-fragment basis. |
Impact comparison using difference in differences IMPACT | S92 World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition. Chapter 7 Difference in Differences | Confirm the comparison group and study assumptions. |
Weighted mean SURVEY | S91 UN Handbook of Surveys on Households and Individuals. Chapter 9 section 9.4.2, equation 9-16, printed page 9-19 (PDF page 427); Chapter 8 weighting; Final Draft | The cited UN handbook is a Final Draft. Confirm the survey design and weights. This citation does not cover every pooled-rate rule. |
Forecast error using RMSE FORECAST | S75 Environment Canada: root mean squared error. What is Root Mean Square Error; displayed formula | Confirm matching observations, locations, periods and forecast lead times. |
Paddy irrigation depth requirement NF037 | S78 FAO Irrigation Water Management Training Manual 3. Chapter 4.4 Irrigation water need of rice; steps 1 to 8 | Confirm crop stage, soil, rainfall and water-management inputs. |
Coefficient of variation NF086, NF115 | S84 NIST Coefficient of Variation. Description of sample CV and ratio scale restriction | Confirm compatible observations and a meaningful positive mean. It is not a return-volatility method. |
Standardized Precipitation Index NF095 | S82 WMO Standardized Precipitation Index User Guide. WMO No 1090; SPI calculation and interpretation guidance | Confirm the rainfall record, fitting procedure and local interpretation. The separate SPI demonstration remains Validation required. |
How to check each item
Category | Check needed |
|---|---|
Government publication | Record the government publisher, publication, edition and exact page or section. Confirm local inputs and settings where needed. |
Institution publication | Record the institution, publication, edition and exact page or section. Keep draft and historical status visible. Confirm local inputs and settings where needed. |
Validation required | Review new or changed domain rules, incomplete source matches and local assumptions. A data table or background page alone does not support a formula. |
Software check | The developer tests the copied formula, arithmetic, units and invalid or missing inputs. Ordinary arithmetic does not need separate scientific approval. |
Client and expert decisions
These decisions remain pending in Institution review. Each decision should state what was checked, who checked it, the outcome and any conditions. One review can cover the same method used by several screens.
Topic | What to confirm | Who |
|---|---|---|
Scope and institutions C01, C02, C12 | Confirm the final features, proposed decisions, participating institutions and what stays in existing tools. | Client |
Responsibilities C02 | Name who owns data, submits records, reviews them and approves sharing. | Client and institutions |
Maps and boundaries C03 | Confirm official boundaries and area codes. Resolve the different GN totals. | Data custodian and GIS expert |
Data sources C04 | Confirm datasets, fields, units, update frequency and access or sharing conditions. | Source institutions |
Privacy C05 | Confirm access to personal records, sensitive locations and retention periods. | Client and privacy specialist |
New or changed calculations E01 | Review proposed scores, weights, thresholds, missing-value rules and method changes. For published methods, confirm local inputs, units, settings and intended use. | Relevant expert or statistician |
Land soil and water methods E02 | Confirm local suitability, sampling, laboratory methods and model factors. | Relevant domain experts |
Ecosystem services and PES E03 | Confirm eligibility, rights, rates, safeguards, verification and payment authority. | Client and relevant experts |
Indicators and payments C10 | Confirm indicator definitions, acceptance measures, milestones and payment weights. | Client and monitoring or finance specialists |
Languages and access needs C06 | Confirm wording, supported devices and accessibility requirements. | Client and representative users |
Technical choices and service targets C07, C08 | Agree architecture, hosting, operator, costs, performance, security and recovery targets. | Client and technical adviser |
Complaints and appeals C09 | Confirm receiving officers, response times and the appeal process. | Client |
Final SRS acceptance C11 | Confirm consultation comments, agreed revisions, validation, final presentation and final acceptance. | Authorized client representative |
Source details to confirm
LUPPD: the alternative publications provide planning context. The applicable local planning procedure still needs confirmation under C04 and E02.
HARTI: the published prices support the quoted observations. They do not automatically support proposed volatility, spread or other analysis; review these under C04 and E01.
Live-system security, load and recovery tests belong to implementation. The SRS needs agreed requirements and a test plan. No separate expert approval is needed for each mock screen or repeated calculation.
Record decisions in Institution review only. Keep the source reference, method and affected uses with the decision. A changed method or changed local settings needs a new review of the change; an unchanged shared method can reuse the recorded decision.
The rice-plot examples NF001 and NF002 use fictional grouped counts; plot identity and local category definitions still need confirmation. The disputed PMU finance and procurement examples remain proposed until the client confirms scope.
6 1 Architecture Rules and Worked Examples
Category: Validation required. Source: prototype model functions capacity, expertReport, intervalAggregate, rasterExample, evolutionDemo, extractionDemo and canRead; storage proposals use the versioned architecture catalogue. These project-defined demonstrations extend SRS section 10.9. Named official references support only their stated components, not local adoption. The model, worked examples, field mappings and exact source locators are supplied at system-diagrams/data-architecture-model.js and data-architecture-research.json. Device specifications establish neither local scientific suitability nor access permission.
Packet counts and storage arithmetic
Scalar observations per day = devices × observed properties × samples per day. Packets per day = devices × transmissions per day when one transmission contains all the properties. For 100 stations and one-minute reporting: 100 × 10 × 1,440 = 1,440,000 scalar observations/day, while 100 × 1,440 = 144,000 packets/day. Database rows depend on the chosen packet and observation representation. Bytes/day must use declared measured or assumed bytes per packet and scalar record, plus separate index, projection, file and backup allowances. These are sizing illustrations, not benchmarks or prices.
Cultivation fact grain and annual aggregation
Keep one value per source release, area/boundary version, crop category, season and year. Reject duplicate category-season keys and overlapping definitions before aggregation. Sum compatible seasonal hectares into gross annual cultivated area. Do not call this unique physical land area without plot geometry and an approved union method. Preserve source coverage, missing values and the category definition used in the saved report. A later category crosswalk creates a new projection version; earlier reports retain their original categories.
Weather facts and safe joins
Keep rainfall accumulation and temperature intervals independent from cultivation facts. Reconcile duplicate intervals, counter resets and corrections before accumulating rainfall. Average compatible temperature measurements using explicit duration or approved spatial weights. Required missing coverage withholds a complete annual result. Aggregate weather to one compatible area-year result before joining cultivation categories. One weather result can be displayed beside several categories, but must not be summed once per category. A station point represents its recorded location; district coverage requires a reviewed mapping and weighting method.
Raster example
A rainfall or vegetation raster product retains provider/product version, grid, time step, variable or band, unit, resolution, no-data and quality masks, coordinate system and licence. Align grids using declared reprojection and resampling appropriate to the variable. Preserve masks and cell areas for zonal extraction. Sum rainfall only over compatible time intervals and valid coverage. Use area-weighted means for compatible cell values; do not mix differing resolutions or treat masked cells as zero. Record chunking, input asset references, boundary version and extraction-method version so a revised source or boundary triggers an identifiable rebuild.
Four definition-change examples
Soil electrical conductivity: add a versioned optional attribute with an explicit unit, method, sampling context and effective date. Older records remain not collected rather than zero. Crop reclassification: retain the original category edition and apply a reviewed many-to-many crosswalk only in a new report version. Station relocation: create a new deployment/location interval and link readings to the deployment effective at measurement time. Reservoir capacity: retain separate institution-owned gross and effective capacity claims with units, level/datum context, source editions and periods. Neither a similar label nor a newer receipt silently chooses the authoritative claim.
AI candidate checks
An extraction result must identify the exact source version and evidence spans. An unknown unit, ambiguous place, missing total or unresolved field remains unresolved. Parse and reconcile reliable structured tables deterministically, using AI only where the selected method adds value. Validate candidate types, units, periods, geography and totals, then display the source and editable candidate side by side. Only an explicit authorised review commits the candidate in the simulation. A schema-conforming response or an invented confidence number does not establish factual accuracy.
Source rights and derived outputs
Derived rows, map tiles, aggregates, report artifacts and retrieval chunks retain source-version dependencies. A read or export applies current actor access and current source rights. A withdrawal invalidates affected caches and prevents new public retrieval and exports, even before a full index rebuild. Retain historical material only under an explicit restricted retention policy. A withdrawn source must not remain available through a stale cached report. Copies already downloaded outside the platform cannot be recalled by this demonstration.
Storage options and upgrade decisions
Option A is the starting point: the existing modular application, operational/geospatial capability, protected files and bounded analytical views. Choose Option B when measured cross-domain query cost or repeatable reporting needs justify a governed mart, semantic measures and selected cubes or retrieval indexes. Choose Option C only when measured telemetry throughput, stream latency, raster volume or research queries justify specialist engines. Set and measure the required workload, lag, query and recovery budgets before adoption. Do not install every logical store or assume that a vector index, relational store and OLAP cube are interchangeable.
Provider and evaluation evidence
The research catalogue separates documentation, successful bounded public reads, credential-blocked integration and simulated adapters. It retains official URLs, supporting sections, source dates, measured variables, protocols, access and reuse limits. The local AI evaluation uses a small synthetic set with exact expected fields, missing values, ambiguous units and corrected evidence. It reports field correctness and unresolved review work rather than a successful network response. Representative Sinhala or Tamil evaluation remains dependent on an appropriate reviewed corpus. No private document is transmitted to an AI provider by this prototype.
Synthetic Polonnaruwa calculation results
Reporting years end in August. Maha is attributed to its ending year and Yala to that same year; the weather interval runs from September of the preceding year through August. This is an explicit demonstration policy based on the documented season boundaries, not an approved institutional reporting rule. The synthetic grid weights are 0.25 and 0.75.
Reporting year 2023 (2022-09-01 to 2023-08-31): fictional variety areas Bg 300: 100; Bg 352: 60 ha; gross seasonal cultivated area 160 ha; area-weighted annual rainfall 1300 mm; temperature 28.5 degrees C. Unique physical land area is unavailable without plot/overlap evidence.
Reporting year 2024 (2023-09-01 to 2024-08-31): fictional variety areas Bg 300: 120; Bg 352: 80 ha; gross seasonal cultivated area 200 ha; area-weighted annual rainfall 1500 mm; temperature 29.5 degrees C. Unique physical land area is unavailable without plot/overlap evidence.
The 2023 rainfall calculation is 0.25 × 1,000 + 0.75 × 1,400 = 1,300 mm. Temperature is 0.25 × 27 + 0.75 × 29 = 28.5 degrees C because the two grid summaries cover the same full reporting interval. The 2024 figures use the corresponding complete 366-day interval. These weather values are calculated once before joining the category summaries.
A rerun after correction creates a new source/method snapshot and preserves the original manifest. The ordinary report wizard exposes missing weather coverage, incompatible periods, repeated categories, restricted sources and ambiguous meanings as failures rather than plausible numbers. Exact manifest fields and rows are supplied in the downloadable worked example.
Research and integration catalogue
The following are documented, replaceable examples. Source permissions, regional variants, calibration, siting, local network compatibility and operational acceptance must be confirmed before use. The controlled JSON catalogue supplies the full variable, accuracy, protocol, equipment, access and evidence records.
ClimaVue 50 G2, item 43314
Exact model and configuration: ClimaVue 50 G2, item 43314
Manufacturer: Campbell Scientific
Classification: Compact weather sensor; not a complete Internet station
Measured variables
Air temperature (°C): ±0.6 °C. Published measuring range −50 to +60 °C; siting and radiation correction apply. Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44.
Rain accumulation/rate (mm / mm/h): ±5% of measurement. 0–1, 000 mm/h accuracy band; measurement range to 1, 500 mm/h. Liquid precipitation only. Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44.
Relative humidity (%RH): ±2.5% RH typical on current product page. Temperature/humidity dependent; older indexed manual states ±3% RH typical. Supplier must resolve revision. Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44.
Barometric pressure (hPa): ±0.1 hPa at −10 to +50 °C; ±0.5 hPa at −40 to +60 °C on current page. Older indexed manual states ±5 hPa at 25 °C. Do not combine these as equivalent specifications. Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44.
Wind speed (m/s): 0.3 m/s or 6%, whichever is greater. Published range 0–60 m/s; site exposure applies. Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44.
Wind direction (degrees): ±5°. Published 0–359° range; orientation must be recorded. Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44.
Solar radiation (W/m²): ±5% of measurement, typical. Published 0–1, 750 W/m² range; keep sensor level. Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44.
Vapour pressure (kPa): ±0.2 kPa typical below 40 °C. Calculated from temperature/humidity; accuracy varies with both. Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44.
Tilt (degrees): ±1°. Published 0–180° range; supporting instrument-health variable. Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44.
Lightning strike count (strikes): >25% detection at distances under 10 km, typical. Detection varies with distance; not warning authority. Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44.
Lightning average distance (km): Variable; no fixed accuracy adopted. Published 0–40 km range and 3 km resolution. Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44.
Precipitation electrical conductivity (Not confirmed in reviewed specification extract): Not confirmed. Listed among measurements; obtain exact field/unit/method before enabling mapping. Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44.
Accuracy: Temperature ±0.6 °C; rain ±5% at 0–1, 000 mm/h. Variable-specific conditions and the RH/pressure document discrepancy are listed below. Supplier confirmation is required before procurement or scientific use.
Protocol: SDI-12. Overview identifies an eight-pin M12 connector; the specification also uses AQ terminology. Confirm the delivered cable/connector and compatible logger.
Equipment: Compatible SDI-12 logger. Aspen10 is documented; mounting, power and permitted network are separate components.
Power: 3.6–15 V DC. At 12 V: 1.0 mA average using R7! every 10 s; 0.4 mA every 60 s or slower; peak 33 mA. Size logger, modem and power reserve separately.
Connectivity: Logger/edge uplink. No direct sensor web API established.
Maintenance: Check tilt/level and funnel contamination; retain service/calibration record.
Data access: Authorised logger export/adapter into common intake.
Restrictions: No heated solid-precipitation capability. Product/manual discrepancies need supplier resolution. Lightning detection is not an authorised hazard warning.
Local uncertainties: Local availability, scientific approval, installation design, radio/network suitability and institutional acceptance remain unverified.
Downstream use: Weather observations and coverage-aware Expert Hub comparisons.
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Optional extension; researched documentation only
Cost category: Current local quotation and lifetime operating cost not established.
Sources: ARC-S01; ARC-S43; ARC-S44
WXT536 within WXT530 series
Exact model and configuration: WXT536 within WXT530 series
Manufacturer: Vaisala
Classification: Weather transmitter; logger,power and communication unit separate
Measured variables
Temperature (°C): ±0.3 °C at +20 °C for the sensor element. Naturally aspirated shield can affect readings in calm wind. Sources: ARC-S02; ARC-S03; ARC-S04; ARC-S40.
Relative humidity (%RH): ±3% RH at 0–90% RH; ±5% RH at 90–100% RH. Sensor-element specification; natural aspiration caveat applies. Sources: ARC-S02; ARC-S03; ARC-S04; ARC-S40.
Pressure (hPa): ±0.5 hPa at 0 to +30 °C; ±1 hPa at −52 to +60 °C. Specified for 600–1, 100 hPa. Sources: ARC-S02; ARC-S03; ARC-S04; ARC-S40.
Rain accumulation/intensity (mm / mm/h): Better than 5% for daily accumulation, weather dependent. Liquid precipitation; excludes wind-induced error. Totals are cumulative since reset. Intensity range 0–200 mm/h, wider with reduced accuracy. Sources: ARC-S02; ARC-S03; ARC-S04; ARC-S40.
Wind speed (m/s): ±3% at 10 m/s. Observation range 0–60 m/s. Sources: ARC-S02; ARC-S03; ARC-S04; ARC-S40.
Wind direction (degrees): ±3° at 10 m/s. Averaging interval and sampling rate are configurable. Sources: ARC-S02; ARC-S03; ARC-S04; ARC-S40.
Hail detection/intensity (hits/cm² / hits/(cm²·h)): No fixed hail accuracy adopted. Manufacturer reports hail-hit outputs; do not convert these to rainfall volume. Sources: ARC-S02; ARC-S03; ARC-S04; ARC-S40.
Accuracy: Element temperature ±0.3°C at20°C; wind±3% at10m/s; daily rain better than5%, weather-dependent, excluding wind-induced error. Calm-weather natural aspiration affects field equivalence.
Protocol: SDI-12, ASCII automatic/polled, NMEA 0183 with query option, or Modbus RTU; configurable RS-232/485/422 or SDI-12 interfaces. Confirm ordered mode and wiring.
Equipment: Compatible logger, mast, power and uplink. AWS810/DMU801 is one documented station context.
Power: 5–32 V DC power-up per M211840EN-G. Current consumption depends on mode, interface and intervals; optional heating requires a separately checked power budget.
Connectivity: Serial/logger boundary is not an Internet API.
Maintenance: Inspect siting, shield and precipitation surface; retain service/calibration.
Data access: Authorised logging adapter; not connected in prototype.
Restrictions: Solar radiation is not included in this standard variable bundle. Rain totals have reset semantics.
Local uncertainties: Local availability, scientific approval, installation design, radio/network suitability and institutional acceptance remain unverified.
Downstream use: Weather datastreams and explicitly weighted area comparisons.
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Optional extension; researched documentation only
Cost category: Current local quotation and lifetime operating cost not established.
Sources: ARC-S02; ARC-S03; ARC-S04; ARC-S40
Davis Instruments DEV-03
Exact model and configuration: Wireless Vantage Pro2 6323M metric sensor suite with 24-hour fan-aspirated shield
Manufacturer: Davis Instruments
Classification: Wireless sensor suite plus separate gateway/service
Measured variables
Outside temperature (°C): See the device accuracy conditions; any unlisted variable-specific tolerance must be confirmed.. Use the exact manufacturer revision and ordered variant; no local deployment validation has been completed. Sources: ARC-S05; ARC-S06; ARC-S07; ARC-S08; ARC-S13; ARC-S15.
Outside humidity (%RH): See the device accuracy conditions; any unlisted variable-specific tolerance must be confirmed.. Use the exact manufacturer revision and ordered variant; no local deployment validation has been completed. Sources: ARC-S05; ARC-S06; ARC-S07; ARC-S08; ARC-S13; ARC-S15.
Wind speed/direction (m/s / degrees): See the device accuracy conditions; any unlisted variable-specific tolerance must be confirmed.. Use the exact manufacturer revision and ordered variant; no local deployment validation has been completed. Sources: ARC-S05; ARC-S06; ARC-S07; ARC-S08; ARC-S13; ARC-S15.
Rain accumulation (mm): See the device accuracy conditions; any unlisted variable-specific tolerance must be confirmed.. Use the exact manufacturer revision and ordered variant; no local deployment validation has been completed. Sources: ARC-S05; ARC-S06; ARC-S07; ARC-S08; ARC-S13; ARC-S15.
Accuracy: Manufacturer-linked family sheet: outside temperature ±0.5 °C typical; rain ±3% or one 0.2 mm tip up to 250 mm/h. Confirm these against the current exact regional SKU. Unlisted per-variable tolerances are not adopted.
Protocol: Compatible Davis wireless receiver, then authorised WeatherLink v2 API.
Equipment: WeatherLink Live 6100 or another compatible receiver, router, separate gateway power and mounting. UV, solar, soil and leaf sensors are optional.
Power: Suite solar/battery; gateway has separate supply; fan backup and servicing add operating requirements.
Connectivity: WeatherLink Live Wi-Fi/Ethernet. Local app cadence differs from cloud/API.
Maintenance: Clean gauge/shield; inspect fan, batteries, alignment using current manual.
Data access: Owned/shared eligible account and protected API key/secret; subscription controls history.
Restrictions: Verify metric/US order, regional radio band and entitlement. Public webpage is not API permission.
Local uncertainties: Local availability, scientific approval, installation design, radio/network suitability and institutional acceptance remain unverified.
Downstream use: Station observations retaining packet, unit, time; not automatic district coverage.
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Optional extension; credential-blocked integration
Cost category: Current local quotation and lifetime operating cost not established.
Sources: ARC-S05; ARC-S06; ARC-S07; ARC-S08; ARC-S13; ARC-S15
TEROS 12 with compatible ZL6 logger option
Exact model and configuration: TEROS 12 with compatible ZL6 logger option
Manufacturer: METER Group
Classification: Soil sensor; logger/gateway separate
Measured variables
Volumetric water content (m³/m³): See the device accuracy conditions; any unlisted variable-specific tolerance must be confirmed.. Use the exact manufacturer revision and ordered variant; no local deployment validation has been completed. Sources: ARC-S09.
Temperature (°C): See the device accuracy conditions; any unlisted variable-specific tolerance must be confirmed.. Use the exact manufacturer revision and ordered variant; no local deployment validation has been completed. Sources: ARC-S09.
Bulk electrical conductivity (µS/cm): See the device accuracy conditions; any unlisted variable-specific tolerance must be confirmed.. Use the exact manufacturer revision and ordered variant; no local deployment validation has been completed. Sources: ARC-S09.
Accuracy: VWC ±0.03 m³/m³, typical in mineral soils with solution EC below 8, 000 µS/cm; medium-specific calibration ±0.01–0.02. Temperature ±1 °C from −40 to 0 °C and ±0.5 °C from 0 to +60 °C. Bulk EC ±(5% + 10 µS/cm) from 0–10, 000; ±8% from 10, 000–20, 000 µS/cm.
Protocol: DDI serial or SDI-12
Equipment: ZL6, EM60, Em50 or another compatible 4–15 V DC serial/SDI-12 logger. Retain depth and location metadata.
Power: 4–15VDC sensor; logger/uplink power separate.
Connectivity: Sensor cable to logger; connected logger/cloud entitlement separately verified.
Maintenance: Ensure soil contact, depth and calibration; verification clip or medium-specific calibration as justified.
Data access: Authorised logger file/API after provider contract verification.
Restrictions: BulkEC is not pore-waterEC or laboratory extractEC. Depth/deployment affect meaning.
Local uncertainties: Local availability, scientific approval, installation design, radio/network suitability and institutional acceptance remain unverified.
Downstream use: Soil observations, definition-evolution example and land-management evidence.
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Optional extension; researched documentation only
Cost category: Current local quotation and lifetime operating cost not established.
Sources: ARC-S09
OTT HydroMet DEV-05
Exact model and configuration: ecoLog 1000 SKU 5545000190-10UC, 0–10 m, 26 Ah, conductivity-equipped LTE-M example
Manufacturer: OTT HydroMet
Classification: Pressure/temperature/conductivity logger with cellular modem
Measured variables
Pressure-derived water level (m relative to declared datum): See the device accuracy conditions; any unlisted variable-specific tolerance must be confirmed.. Use the exact manufacturer revision and ordered variant; no local deployment validation has been completed. Sources: ARC-S10; ARC-S11; ARC-S12.
Temperature (°C): See the device accuracy conditions; any unlisted variable-specific tolerance must be confirmed.. Use the exact manufacturer revision and ordered variant; no local deployment validation has been completed. Sources: ARC-S10; ARC-S11; ARC-S12.
Conductivity (µS/cm or mS/cm): See the device accuracy conditions; any unlisted variable-specific tolerance must be confirmed.. Use the exact manufacturer revision and ordered variant; no local deployment validation has been completed. Sources: ARC-S10; ARC-S11; ARC-S12.
Accuracy: Pressure±0.05%FS; temperature±0.1°C. EC±0.5%(minimum1µS/cm) at5–2000µS/cm; ±1.5%(minimum0.01mS/cm) at0.1–100mS/cm; EC calibration5–45°C.
Protocol: Listed HTTPS/TLS1.2, HTTP, FTP/FTPS, MQTT/MQTTS; BLE service.
Equipment: Correct modem/SIM/antenna, probe/cable, mounting, water-level datum and authorised receiving endpoint.
Power: 3.6 V, 26 Ah lithium battery for the researched option. Life depends on sampling, transmission, temperature and conductivity operation.
Connectivity: The 10UC example uses LTE-M. Family EU 4G/2G variants differ; suitability for a local mobile network is unverified.
Maintenance: Inspect pressure datum/vent, fouling, calibration and battery; current regional manual required.
Data access: Authorised IP/file adapter only; real device not configured.
Restrictions: 10U lacks conductivity; 10UC includes it. Do not generalise across family variants.
Local uncertainties: Local availability, scientific approval, installation design, radio/network suitability and institutional acceptance remain unverified.
Downstream use: Water-level/quality observations. Reservoir volume requires reviewed level-volume relationship.
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Optional extension; official documentation partly available, no device test
Cost category: Current local quotation and lifetime operating cost not established.
Sources: ARC-S10; ARC-S11; ARC-S12
WeatherLink v2 authorised station data
Type: Station observations through provider cloud
Variables: Configured sensor-type weather fields
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Credential-blocked integration
Endpoint example: GET https://api.weatherlink.com/v2/current/{station-id}?api-key={server-side-key}
Coverage: Entitled owned/shared/qualifying stations only
Time coverage: History depends on entitlement. Unix timestamps mark the archive interval end; the historic API selects (start, end]. Preserve the source interval and timezone.
Latency: Basic 15-minute current, Pro 5-minute, Pro+ most recent for WeatherLink Live
Authentication: api-key query and X-Api-Secret header; protected server-side adapter
Licensing: Station relationship, subscription and redistribution permission required
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: station_id, sensors, sensor_type, data_structure_type, lsid, ts and sensor-specific data
Units: Preserve native units and map from exact sensor catalogue/data structure
Pagination: Provider-specific bounded pages/windows; retain cursor, overlap and replay-safe source key.
Error handling: Validate HTTP/schema; retain rejected evidence. Bounded backoff, quarantine/failure queue, resumable watermark and deduplication. Missing delivery is not zero.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: No price adopted; institutional/service cost and procurement remain unconfirmed.
Limits: 1000calls/hour, 10/second; history window≤86400seconds
Sources: ARC-S13; ARC-S14; ARC-S15; ARC-S16; ARC-S17; ARC-S39
Sri Lankan Weather Advisory System JSON
Type: Official issued warnings/advisories
Variables: Level, areas, language, validity, publication
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Credential-blocked integration
Endpoint example: GET https://was.meteo.gov.lk/api/warnings/changes?since={server-cursor}&lang=en
Coverage: Sri Lanka issued warning areas; not station coverage
Time coverage: Current and cursor changes; complete archive unverified
Latency: About60s changes polling recommended; no SLA
Authentication: X-API-Key; not obtained or used
Licensing: Read-only warning feed; preserve issuer/terms
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: id, day_key, name, level, valid_from, valid_to, summary_en/si/ta, areas_en, published_at; changes since
Units: Offset timestamps; no measured weather unit implied
Pagination: Provider-specific bounded pages/windows; retain cursor, overlap and replay-safe source key.
Error handling: 401invalidkey, 400since/lang, 429ratelimit. Retain returned server cursor; never fabricate a newer cursor.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: No price adopted; institutional/service cost and procurement remain unconfirmed.
Limits: 120requests/60s; limit1–200(default50)
Sources: ARC-S18
Sri Lankan Weather Advisory System CAP/RSS
Type: Official warning metadata and CAP1.2 XML
Variables: Alert identity, area, validity, language
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Successfully tested public read
Endpoint example: GET https://was.meteo.gov.lk/cap/en/rss.xml
Coverage: Sri Lanka warning areas
Time coverage: Active warnings; full archive not established
Latency: Provider issue/expiry distinct from fetch cadence
Authentication: Documented CAP/RSS requires no key
Licensing: Preserve issuing authority; review terms
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: RSS linking CAP1.2 XML resources
Units: Official event/area/timestamps
Pagination: Follow only authorised CAP links; retain replacements/cancellations.
Error handling: Validate HTTP/schema; retain rejected evidence. Bounded backoff, quarantine/failure queue, resumable watermark and deduplication. Missing delivery is not zero.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: No price adopted; institutional/service cost and procurement remain unconfirmed.
Limits: Rate limited; confirm CAP-specific service policy
Sources: ARC-S18
Open-Meteo forecast
Type: Gridded weather-model forecast
Variables: temperature_2m, precipitation and selected variables
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Successfully tested public read
Endpoint example: GET https://api.open-meteo.com/v1/forecast?latitude=52.52&longitude=13.41&hourly=temperature_2m,precipitation&forecast_days=1&timezone=UTC
Coverage: Global model grid; resolution depends on product
Time coverage: Normally7days; up to16days per product
Latency: Model-run dependent; no operational latency commitment
Authentication: Keyless public evaluation; customer endpoint/plan separately authorised
Licensing: Weather data is CC BY 4.0 with attribution and modification notices. The free API service is non-commercial; commercial service use requires a suitable subscription.
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: hourly.time, value arrays, hourly_units, grid coordinates, timezone
Units: Tested temperature_2m°C, precipitationmm
Pagination: Provider-specific bounded pages/windows; retain cursor, overlap and replay-safe source key.
Error handling: Validate HTTP/schema; retain rejected evidence. Bounded backoff, quarantine/failure queue, resumable watermark and deduplication. Missing delivery is not zero.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: Evaluation tier documented; production/commercial plan not selected.
Limits: Free600/min, 5000/hour, 10000/day, 300000/month at check date
Sources: ARC-S19; ARC-S21
Open-Meteo historical weather
Type: Gridded reanalysis/historical model
Variables: temperature_2m, precipitation and selected hourly measures
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Researched documentation; adapter simulated
Endpoint example: GET https://archive-api.open-meteo.com/v1/archive?latitude=7.9&longitude=81.0&start_date=2020-01-01&end_date=2020-01-02&hourly=temperature_2m,precipitation&models=era5&timezone=UTC
Coverage: ERA5/ERA5-Land/IFS distinct grids
Time coverage: ERA5from1940; ERA5-Landfrom1950; IFSfrom2017
Latency: Historical release/product-dependent
Authentication: Evaluation or licensed route as applicable
Licensing: Retain CC BY 4.0 attribution and product-specific provenance. Commercial historical API access requires Professional or higher at the checked date; no plan is selected.
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: Time/value arrays, units; pin product/model
Units: Use returned units and interval meaning
Pagination: Provider-specific bounded pages/windows; retain cursor, overlap and replay-safe source key.
Error handling: Validate HTTP/schema; retain rejected evidence. Bounded backoff, quarantine/failure queue, resumable watermark and deduplication. Missing delivery is not zero.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: No price adopted; institutional/service cost and procurement remain unconfirmed.
Limits: Bound ranges/variables and confirm account limits
Sources: ARC-S20; ARC-S21
NASA POWER Hourly
Type: Gridded assimilation/satellite-derived analysis
Variables: T2M and selected solar/meteorology
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Successfully tested public read
Endpoint example: GET https://power.larc.nasa.gov/api/temporal/hourly/point?parameters=T2M&community=SB&longitude=0&latitude=0&start=20170101&end=20170102&format=JSON&time-standard=UTC
Coverage: Native source grid point/regional product; not station observations
Time coverage: Hourlyfrom2001-01-01 to near-real-time
Latency: Source/parameter dependent
Authentication: Public unauthenticated read tested
Licensing: Preserve NASA source attribution and exact dataset terms
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: properties.parameter byvariable/hour; header and parameters
Units: Community/parameter-specific; testedT2M C; explicitUTC
Pagination: Provider-specific bounded pages/windows; retain cursor, overlap and replay-safe source key.
Error handling: Validate HTTP/schema; retain rejected evidence. Bounded backoff, quarantine/failure queue, resumable watermark and deduplication. Missing delivery is not zero.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: No price adopted; institutional/service cost and procurement remain unconfirmed.
Limits: At most15parameters/request; bounded windows
Sources: ARC-S22; ARC-S23
Irrigation Department authorised exchange
Type: Institutional water records/publications
Variables: Reservoir/rain/river data only after dataset agreement
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Researched source catalogue; operational adapter unavailable
Endpoint example: No verified public observation API;catalogue https://www.irrigation.gov.lk/web/index.php?lang=en
Coverage: Named stations/assets/basins; exact roster/version required
Time coverage: Dataset-specific
Latency: Owner update policy unconfirmed
Authentication: Operational feed access unknown; no credentials used
Licensing: Custodian use/redistribution agreement required
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: Obtain approved file/API contract; retain asset/table/row/period
Units: Declared water-level datum, m³ or approved capacity unit, rainmm; gross/effective capacity separate
Pagination: Provider-specific bounded pages/windows; retain cursor, overlap and replay-safe source key.
Error handling: Validate HTTP/schema; retain rejected evidence. Bounded backoff, quarantine/failure queue, resumable watermark and deduplication. Missing delivery is not zero.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: No price adopted; institutional/service cost and procurement remain unconfirmed.
Limits: Observation API/rate/size contract not established
Sources: ARC-S24
NSDI spatial metadata/services
Type: Institution-owned GIS services via catalogue
Variables: Permitted layer descriptions/places/geometries
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Researched documentation; endpoint not tested
Endpoint example: GET https://gisapps.nsdi.gov.lk/server/services/SLNSDI/Locations/MapServer/WMSServer?SERVICE=WMS&VERSION=1.3.0&REQUEST=GetCapabilities
Coverage: Layer extent, CRS, boundary edition, original scale
Time coverage: Layer version/validity
Latency: Owner-defined refresh
Authentication: Per-service access; discovery is not open feature permission
Licensing: Free/commercial datasets; owner approval
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: WMS1.3.0 capabilities documented; feature API only if separately authorised
Units: Layer CRS axes, scale and measurement semantics
Pagination: Provider-specific bounded pages/windows; retain cursor, overlap and replay-safe source key.
Error handling: Validate HTTP/schema; retain rejected evidence. Bounded backoff, quarantine/failure queue, resumable watermark and deduplication. Missing delivery is not zero.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: No price adopted; institutional/service cost and procurement remain unconfirmed.
Limits: Per-service limits unverified; boundedBBOX/CRS
Sources: ARC-S25; ARC-S26; ARC-S38
DCS Paddy Statistics
Type: Official periodic tables
Variables: Sown/harvested area, yield, production
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Researched documentation; table-import adapter simulated
Endpoint example: Catalogue https://www.statistics.gov.lk/Agriculture/%20StaticalInformation/PaddyStatistics
Coverage: Published district/season/irrigation grain; variety breakdown not inferred
Time coverage: Maha cross-year, Yala; exact revised release
Latency: Seasonal publication and revision
Authentication: Public table documents; no API claim
Licensing: Confirm exact release rights
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: Season, district, area meaning, unit, extent, yield, production, release
Units: Metric/imperial separate; ha, t/ha, t only when table specifies
Pagination: Provider-specific bounded pages/windows; retain cursor, overlap and replay-safe source key.
Error handling: Validate HTTP/schema; retain rejected evidence. Bounded backoff, quarantine/failure queue, resumable watermark and deduplication. Missing delivery is not zero.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: No price adopted; institutional/service cost and procurement remain unconfirmed.
Limits: Complete deterministic table parsing
Sources: ARC-S27
DOA SEPC / Agstat
Type: Official agriculture publications
Variables: Agstat, cultivation cost, crop forecasts, budgets
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Researched documentation; document-import fallback
Endpoint example: Catalogue https://doa.gov.lk/sepc-downloads_en/
Coverage: Publication-specific geographic grain
Time coverage: Periodic editions
Latency: Publication schedule; not real-time
Authentication: Public catalogue; API discovery unreadable, so no routes inferred
Licensing: Edition/rights need custodian review
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: Table/page/schema contract; no undocumented API
Units: Table-specific unit, season, crop meaning
Pagination: Provider-specific bounded pages/windows; retain cursor, overlap and replay-safe source key.
Error handling: Validate HTTP/schema; retain rejected evidence. Bounded backoff, quarantine/failure queue, resumable watermark and deduplication. Missing delivery is not zero.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: No price adopted; institutional/service cost and procurement remain unconfirmed.
Limits: Parse all rows deterministically
Sources: ARC-S28
DMC official warning documents
Type: Issued bulletins/withdrawals
Variables: Issuer, issue/validity, area, replacement
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Researched documentation; manual/reference fallback
Endpoint example: Catalogue https://www.dmc.gov.lk/index.php?Itemid=279&lang=en&option=com_dmcreports&report_type_id=8&view=reports
Coverage: Named basins/areas in bulletin
Time coverage: Dated notices; complete archive not guaranteed
Latency: Issue time; no polling SLA
Authentication: Public document list; no API inferred
Licensing: Preserve issuer; automation/reproduction rights reviewed
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: Document with exact page and metadata
Units: Source-issued warning classifications; no sensor-derived authority
Pagination: Provider-specific bounded pages/windows; retain cursor, overlap and replay-safe source key.
Error handling: Validate HTTP/schema; retain rejected evidence. Bounded backoff, quarantine/failure queue, resumable watermark and deduplication. Missing delivery is not zero.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: No price adopted; institutional/service cost and procurement remain unconfirmed.
Limits: Bounded catalogue checks
Sources: ARC-S29
LUPPD authorised land-use release
Type: Custodian spatial/statistical release
Variables: Land-use classes, coverage, planning definitions
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: External institutional dependency; current interface unavailable
Endpoint example: No verified endpoint;retain existing LUPPD source identity and approved file/manual fallback
Coverage: Official coverage/geometry/class release unconfirmed
Time coverage: Release-specific
Latency: Unconfirmed
Authentication: Custodian agreement; no verified public API
Licensing: Rights and exact release unconfirmed
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: Reuse authorised GIS/file intake; retain institutional claims
Units: Owner-declaredCRS, area unit, categorical meaning
Pagination: Provider-specific bounded pages/windows; retain cursor, overlap and replay-safe source key.
Error handling: Validate HTTP/schema; retain rejected evidence. Bounded backoff, quarantine/failure queue, resumable watermark and deduplication. Missing delivery is not zero.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: No price adopted; institutional/service cost and procurement remain unconfirmed.
Limits: No machine contract verified
Sources: No verified current interface reference; institutional confirmation required.
CEA water-quality institutional source
Type: Official laboratory reports and environmental data catalogue
Variables: Approved sample parameters, laboratory method and results; exact released table required
Source date: 2026-11-02
Status: Researched official source; authorised report/file fallback
Endpoint example: Catalogue https://cea.lk/web/en/2013-05-07-07-51-07/environmental-pollution-contorl-division/water-quality-unit
Coverage: Named water bodies/sites and sample locations; no project-area coverage inferred
Time coverage: Release/sample-specific; complete archive not established
Latency: Owner publication or authorised exchange schedule
Authentication: Public service catalogue; restricted records require custodian agreement
Licensing: Exact dataset and reuse rights unconfirmed; some laboratory/project services commercial
Permissions: Source owner and intended audience must authorise use; no blanket redistribution claim.
Schema: Source report/table, sample identity, location, depth, time, method, result, unit and qualifier
Units: Parameter- and method-specific; retain detection limits and censored values
Pagination: Provider-specific bounded pages/windows; retain cursor, overlap and replay-safe source key.
Error handling: Validate HTTP/schema; retain rejected evidence. Bounded backoff, quarantine/failure queue, resumable watermark and deduplication. Missing delivery is not zero.
Freshness: Keep phenomenon period, provider issue time, receipt and last successful fetch separately; show stale coverage.
Cost category: No price adopted; institutional/service cost and procurement remain unconfirmed.
Limits: No public observation API contract established
Sources: ARC-S41; ARC-S42
Complete source locators and provider options
Official device, data-provider, OGC, dimensional-modelling, earth-observation and OpenAI references are retained in the architecture research catalogue with exact supporting passages and verification dates. They supplement the retained calculation source register without changing its historical identities. Open https://sharedproto.wkslabs.com/reviews/dashboard-portfolio-20261027/system-diagrams/#data-ai
ARC-S01 Campbell Scientific ClimaVue 50 G2
https://www.campbellsci.com/products/climavue50-g2 Overview and Specifications: supply, Air Temperature, Wind Speed, Precipitation SDI-12; compatible Aspen10/loggers; 3.6–15VDC; temperature±0.6°C; wind max(0.3m/s, 6%); rain±5% at0–1000mm/h. Liquid precipitation and stated siting/operating conditions. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S02 Vaisala WXT536 station context
https://docs.vaisala.com/r/M212902EN-G/en-US/GUID-E6912022-5F36-44DF-90CA-2721236D948C Vaisala Weather Transmitter WXT536 WXT536 is a transmitter within a complete station. Power, logger and communications are separate responsibilities. Version: M212902EN-G. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S03 Vaisala WXT536 specifications
https://docs.vaisala.com/r/M212902EN-G/en-US/GUID-AD3DAFAA-7537-453B-969B-B3229E311DD7 Measurement tables and footnotes1, 2, 5, 7 Temperature sensor element±0.3°C at20°C; wind±3% at10m/s; daily rain better than5%, weather-dependent, excluding wind-induced error. Natural aspiration affects calm-weather readings. Version: M212902EN-G. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S04 Vaisala configurable WXT530
https://store.vaisala.com/en/products/WXT530 Digital outputs and WXT536 variant Official indexed catalogue lists SDI-12, RS-232, RS-485, RS-422. Page body unreadable; confirm exact power, heater, protocol and order bundle. Version: Current configurable family. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Official source partly readable
ARC-S05 Davis Vantage Pro2 fan-aspirated suite
https://www.davisinstruments.com/products/wireless-vantage-pro2-iss-with-24-hr-fan-aspirated-radiation-shield Product title and Highlights Listed6323/6323M; outside temperature/RH, wind, rain; solar/battery. WeatherLinkLive6100 is optional. UV, solar-radiation and soil/leaf sensors are additional options. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S06 Davis WeatherLink Live
https://www.davisinstruments.com/pages/weatherlink-live Live Data; Wi-Fi and Ethernet; compatible stations Separate compatible wireless gateway with Wi-Fi/Ethernet uplink. Local same-network app cadence differs from cloud API permissions. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S07 Davis wireless family specification
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0515/5992/3873/files/6152_6162_6153_6163_Spec_SheetFF__Web.pdf?v=1661460993 Printed pp1, 5, 6, 8: rain tip, rainfall, outside temperature, wind Metric tip0.2mm; rain total±3% or one tip up to250mm/h; outside temperature±0.5°C typical. Family sheet is not proof of unchanged current regional SKU. Version: Manufacturer-linked historical family sheet. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S08 Davis fan-aspirated ISS addendum
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0515/5992/3873/files/VP2_Fan_Aspirated_ISS_Rev_C.pdf Printed p7 Fan-Aspirated Shield Specifications; maintenance Solar-powered fan, backup cells and cleaning/service requirements. Reconcile historical manual with current purchased hardware. Version: RevC22March2006. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S09 METER TEROS12
https://metergroup.com/products/teros-12/ Measurement, Communication, Electrical Specifications VWC, temperature, bulkEC; DDI/SDI-12; 4–15VDC; compatibleZL6/EM60/Em50. Generic mineral-soilVWC±0.03m³/m³ when solutionEC<8000µS/cm; medium calibration±0.01–0.02. BulkEC is not laboratory/pore-waterEC. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S10 OTT ecoLog1000 conductivity SKU
https://www.ott.com/products/5545000190-10uc Product title and Technical Attributes 5545000190-10UC:0–10m, 26Ah, conductivity, LTE-M. Pressure±0.05%FS; temperature±0.1°C; EC conditions vary. Later full-page reads timed out; official indexed specifications retained. Version: Exact10UC variant. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Official documentation partly available; no device test
ARC-S11 OTT ecoLog1000 instructions
https://www.ott.com/download/operating-instructions-groundwater-datalogger-ott-ecolog-1000-5/ Section2.2 USA variant table Indexed manufacturer manual distinguishes10U from conductivity10UC, LTE-M. Current download redirects; obtain current regional manual before purchase. Version: Indexed manual; direct download unresolved. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Current direct download unavailable
ARC-S12 OTT ecoLog1000 data sheet
https://www.ott.com/products/download/data-sheet-ott-ecolog-1000-en/ Communications, measured values, power Indexed sheet distinguishes EU4G/2G and globalLTE-M. Conductivity optional at family level. Current link redirects to general resources. Version: Indexed sheet; current link redirects. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Current direct download unavailable
ARC-S13 WeatherLinkv2 introduction
https://weatherlink.github.io/v2-api/ Station access criteria Ownership, owner-share or qualifying upgrade determines access. Public visibility does not grant unrestricted observation API access. Version: WeatherLinkv2. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S14 WeatherLink authentication
https://weatherlink.github.io/v2-api/authentication API Key; API Secret api-key query parameter and X-Api-Secret header. Connector keeps credentials server-side and redacts URL logs. Version: WeatherLinkv2 current authentication. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S15 WeatherLink data permissions
https://weatherlink.github.io/v2-api/data-permissions WeatherLink Console/Live table Basic 15-minute current records, no history; Pro 5-minute current and history; Pro+latest/history, subject to station relationship. Version: WeatherLinkv2. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S16 WeatherLink rate limits
https://weatherlink.github.io/v2-api/rate-limits Default rate limits 1000calls/hour and10calls/second per API key. Version: WeatherLinkv2. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S17 WeatherLink size limits
https://weatherlink.github.io/v2-api/size-limits Historic windows Starting/ending Unix timestamps; historic request window at most86400seconds. Version: WeatherLinkv2. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S18 Sri Lankan Weather Advisory System
https://was.meteo.gov.lk/api-docs Authentication; Warnings; Changes; Timestamps; CAP/RSS; Errors KeyedJSON warnings vs keylessCAP1.2/RSS; en/si/ta; 120requests/60s; limit1–200(default50); changes uses returned since cursor. This is an issued warning feed, not a station API. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S19 Open-Meteo forecast API
https://open-meteo.com/en/docs Weather Forecast API; hourly variables; response Gridded model forecast arrays with timestamps and units; retain product/run, resolution and interval. Not physical station observations. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S20 Open-Meteo historical weather
https://open-meteo.com/en/docs/historical-weather-api Historical Weather introduction/data sources ERA5from1940 at0.25°, ERA5-Landfrom1950 at0.1°, IFSfrom2017 at9km. Use consistent product for comparisons; coordinate is not district coverage. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S21 Open-Meteo access terms
https://open-meteo.com/en/pricing Free/Open Access table; FAQ Free API is non-commercial: 600/minute, 5,000/hour, 10,000/day, 300,000/month. Paid customer access differs; historical APIs require Professional or higher. Data is CC BY 4.0 with attribution; this differs from API-service terms. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S22 NASA POWER Hourly API
https://power.larc.nasa.gov/docs/services/api/temporal/hourly/ Formats; Time Standards; Limitations; Point examples Hourlyfrom2001; at most15parameters/request; UTC or defaultLocalSolarTime. FormatsJSON/CSV/NetCDF. Nativeparameter/community units. LST is not Sri Lankan civil time. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S23 NASA POWER data sources
https://power.larc.nasa.gov/docs/faqs/data/ Sources; Units; Latency Solar is satellite-informed modeled data; meteorology derives fromMERRA-2/GEOS-ITassimilation. Preserve source grid/resolution. Not station observations. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S24 Sri Lanka Irrigation Department
https://www.irrigation.gov.lk/web/index.php?lang=en Water Management; Hydrology; Publications; Flood Warning Official water/irrigation source discovery. Homepage does not establish public observation API, automated reuse rights or update SLA. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S25 Sri Lanka NSDI Geoportal
https://www.nsdi.gov.lk/geoportal Geoportal description Official spatial metadata/service discovery; per-layer authority, scale, rights and versions remain necessary. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S26 Sri Lanka NSDI FAQ
https://www.nsdi.gov.lk/faq Availability; publishing prerequisites Free and commercial datasets coexist; publishing links requires registration/institutionalMOU. Discovery is not blanket redistribution permission. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S27 DCS Paddy Statistics
https://www.statistics.gov.lk/Agriculture/%20StaticalInformation/PaddyStatistics Paddy Statistics definitions; tables; revision note MahaSep–Marfollowingyear; YalaApr–Aug. Asweddumized, sown, harvested differ. Production uses harvestedarea×crop-cuttingyield. Preserve revised releases; district totals do not imply variety breakdown. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S28 DOA SEPC downloads
https://doa.gov.lk/sepc-downloads_en/ Agstat, cost-of-cultivation, crop-forecast categories Official periodic agriculture/weather/paddy publications. Preserve edition, page/table, units/periods. Public API and redistribution licence not established. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S29 DMC flood warnings
https://www.dmc.gov.lk/index.php?Itemid=279&lang=en&option=com_dmcreports&report_type_id=8&view=reports Flood Warning and withdrawal notices Official bulletins/withdrawals. Preserve issuer, issue/validity, area and replacements; prototype thresholds cannot issue official warnings. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S30 OGC SensorThings Sensing1.1
https://docs.ogc.org/is/18-088/18-088.html Sections8.2.1–8.2.8; conformance Thing, Location/HistoricalLocation, Sensor, ObservedProperty, Datastream, Observation, FeatureOfInterest. A datastream has one sensor/property and units. Conceptual alignment is not certified conformance. Version: OGC18-088Version1.1; published2021-08-04. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S31 Kimball declared grain
https://www.kimballgroup.com/data-warehouse-business-intelligence-resources/kimball-techniques/dimensional-modeling-techniques/grain/ Grain Declare what one fact row represents before choosing dimensions and facts. Grain is a binding design choice. Independent source aggregation before joining is the proposed architecture's application of this principle. Version: Author guidance. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S32 Kimball stars and OLAP
https://www.kimballgroup.com/data-warehouse-business-intelligence-resources/kimball-techniques/dimensional-modeling-techniques/star-schema-olap-cube/ Star schemas and OLAP cubes Dimensional stars and multidimensional OLAP are analytical representations; retain grain and aggregation meaning. Version: Author guidance. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S33 Open Data Cube
https://opendatacube.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ Overview; metadata; analysis; masking Gridded Earth-observation data/metadata across space, time, variable. CRS, mask, resolution and product definitions matter. Not a business approval ledger. Version: Latestdevelopmentdocsobserved1.9.23.dev65; pin chosen release. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S34 OpenAI file inputs
https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/file-inputs Input mechanisms; file-specific processing; spreadsheet augmentation; usage FileID, Base64 or URL inputs. PDFs include text/page images. Non-PDF embedded charts/images are not extracted. Spreadsheet processing uses first1000rows/sheet. Each file and combined request under50MB. Parse complete tables deterministically. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S35 OpenAI Structured Outputs
https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/structured-outputs Supported schemas; edge cases; text.format JSON-Schema subset constrains shape. Responses text.format can usejson_schema/strict. Handle incomplete/refusal responses; schema conformity is not factual correctness. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S36 OpenAI File Search
https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/tools-file-search File Search; results inclusion; metadata filtering Hosted vector-store retrieval with metadata filters/citations/results. Re-authorise current rights and versions before model context or result delivery. Search is not numerical authority. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S37 OpenAI data controls
https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/your-data Endpoint retention; Responses; Files; residency Default abuse logs may retain content up to30days with exceptions. Response state, Files/vectorstores have distinct retention/deletion. Special retention/residency needs eligibility/configuration. No automatic zero-retention or Sri Lanka residency. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S38 NSDI Location WMS documentation
https://nsdi.gov.lk/location WMS GetCapabilities link ExactWMS1.3.0capabilityURL documented; no feature licence, completeness or service-availability inference. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S39 WeatherLink current and historic endpoint tutorial
https://weatherlink.github.io/v2-api/tutorial Steps 2–4; archive interval explanation Current endpoint and secret header verified. Historic records timestamp the interval end, with selection (start, end]; midnight can close the preceding day. Version: API v2 live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S40 WXT530 interfaces and option bundles
https://docs.vaisala.com/r/M211840EN-G/en-US/GUID-6B30C4BA-CEF6-40DF-9F60-41935D25AB9D Tables 1–2: features and available options Power-up 5–32 V DC; SDI-12, ASCII, NMEA 0183 and Modbus RTU protocols; RS-232/485/422 and SDI-12 interfaces. Heating and auxiliary inputs are configuration options. Version: M211840EN-G. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S41 CEA laboratory services and surface-water source discovery
https://cea.lk/web/en/2013-05-07-07-51-07/environmental-pollution-contorl-division/water-quality-unit Water Quality Monitoring Unit; services; downloads Official laboratory services include inland water monitoring, analytical reports and a surface-water data download section. Some sample/project services are commercial. No public observation API is established here. Version: Official live documentation. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S42 CEA selected inland water bodies
https://www.cea.lk/web/en/component/content/article?id=1801&layout=edit Ambient Water Quality Monitoring of Selected Major Inland Surface Water Bodies Lists Kelani River, Diyawanna Oya, Maha Oya, Bolgoda Lake and Benthara Ganga. This programme list does not establish local project coverage or an automated feed. Version: Page last updated 2025-01-09. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched documentation
ARC-S43 ClimaVue 50 G2 manual, specification discrepancy
https://s.campbellsci.com/documents/us/manuals/climavue50g2.pdf Section 6, specifications Search-indexed manual reports typical RH ±3% and pressure ±5 hPa at 25°C, differing from current product page/brochure specifications. Resolve hardware/revision-specific specification with supplier. Version: Official manual; indexed copy predates current product-page check. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched official indexed manual; revision confirmation required
ARC-S44 ClimaVue 50 G2 manufacturer brochure
https://s.campbellsci.com/documents/us/product-brochures/b_climavue50-g2-a4-branded.pdf Specification headings: pressure, wind, solar, precipitation, tilt and lightning Current indexed brochure supports product-page pressure, wind, solar and precipitation values. Reconcile delivered hardware and calibration certificate with the older manual. Version: Official product brochure; revision date unconfirmed. Checked: 2026-11-02. Status: Researched official indexed brochure
6 2 Land Use Change Decision Rules
DEC-DP01-001 uses method LAND-CHANGE-1. Help a land-use planner find important changes inside the project area, assess the evidence and choose the next investigation.
Inputs. Use a fixed analysis boundary inside each division. Keep the project portion separate from the full administrative division. The three prototype areas and their shapes are fictional.
Group | Required information |
|---|---|
Source and observation | Publisher, original URL or file, dataset release, observation year and season where relevant. Creation or revision years do not automatically identify the observation period. |
Area and classification | Division code, fixed analysis boundary and area in hectares, boundary version, native class/code, proposed class and mapping version, physical land area versus seasonal crop extent. |
Values and quality | Original area and unit, explicit missing value/reason, unclassified area, coverage, area method, representation, coordinate system, raster resolution and local quality reference. |
Formulas and units
Calculation | Definition | Unit |
|---|---|---|
Net change | Later area minus earlier area | ha |
Percentage change | 100 times net change divided by earlier area; unavailable when earlier area is zero | % |
Annual change | Net change divided by elapsed years; interval average, not a forecast | ha/year |
Gross loss and gain | Loss sums matched areas leaving a class. Gain sums matched areas entering it. Net equals gain minus loss | ha |
Converted extent | Sum matched areas whose from and to classes differ. Count each area once, rather than adding all class gains to losses | ha |
Unit conversion | One hectare is 10000 square metres. Retain the original value and unit alongside the converted value | ha |
Comparison and input rules
1. Compare matching analysis boundaries, class definitions, measure types, methods, seasons and source series. Both endpoints must cover the complete selected area; otherwise withhold whole-area change and transitions.
2. Class totals plus unclassified area must equal the fixed analysis area. A blank stays missing and zero stays a known zero. Do not invent a balancing value or join chart lines across missing points.
3. Keep native source categories and codes. A conflicting proposed category is rejected. An ambiguous native class stays unresolved with a mapping note and is excluded from analysis until its mapping is resolved.
4. Order divisions by the largest absolute net class-area change, or by the largest absolute percentage change. Show both metrics and the class used. Allow any change, decreases or increases. Exclude zero-baseline percentages from percentage sorting. Sorting does not set an action threshold.
5. Real gross losses, gains and conversions require matched spatial observations. Net area totals cannot establish where conversion occurred. The prototype constructs fictional parcel histories to demonstrate the rule; its generator is not a real conversion-estimation method.
6. Example annual inputs update the in-page numerical records only after structural and area-total checks. Charts, transitions and exports use those revised records. Reference images retain their independently stated source, coverage and date. Official-source selections remain previews.
7. A decision example records the selected division, analysis scope, years, class, sorting rule, comparison, coverage, reason, next action, proposed responsible role, follow-up and dataset/boundary/class/method versions. Incompatible evidence forces a source-data check. Nothing is assigned or sent by the prototype.
Worked example using fictional data
Scope and period | Earlier forest ha | Later forest ha | Loss ha | Gain ha | Net ha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Laggala Pallegama 2015 to 2019 | 6800 | 6782 | 26 | 8 | -18 |
All three examples 2015 to 2019 | 14900 | 14868 | 56 | 24 | -32 |
For Laggala Pallegama, net change is 6782 minus 6800 = -18 ha. Percentage change is 100 times -18 / 6800 = -0.2647%. Average annual change is -18 / 4 = -4.5 ha/year. Gross loss of 26 ha and gain of 8 ha reproduce the same -18 ha net change. These values do not establish actual project results.
The numerical transition example uses matched fictional area histories. Its independently sourced historical reference images are not generated from those records. Real transition areas require compatible dated observations, source permissions, definitions and quality evidence.
Sources and method categories
Government publication - Sri Lanka National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Planning Cadastre Landuse and Forest Boundary service metadata. Landuse layer 4 native classifications; Forest Boundary layer 1 forest_type domain and coordinate system. Native labels, codes and spatial metadata. The inspected metadata does not establish a comparable annual project series.
Source: Open reference
Supporting reference: Open reference
Institution publication - Copernicus Global Land Service. CGLS LC100 Collection 3 version 3.0.1. 2015 to 2019 product and discrete classification definitions. Annual broad cover classes at nominal 100 m. Woody crops can enter tree or shrub classes; this source alone cannot split every detailed local land use.
Source: Open reference
Supporting reference: Open reference
Government publication - Department of Census and Statistics Sri Lanka. Paddy Statistics. District and Maha or Yala seasonal extent definitions. Seasonal crop context. Sown, harvested and asweddumized extents are not interchangeable with a physical land-cover map.
Source: Open reference
Institution publication - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006 Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 3. Sections 3.3 and 3.5 consistent land representation, net versus gross change and uncertainty. Methodological context for matched land representation and transition accounting. This prototype is not a greenhouse-gas inventory.
Source: Open reference
Institution publication - UN Handbook on Remote Sensing for Agricultural Statistics. Chapter 8 Map Validation and Use of Maps for Area Estimation. Sections 8.1, 8.3 and 8.5; Gilberto Camara and Lorenzo De Simone. Reference sampling, accuracy assessment and area uncertainty. A global accuracy figure does not replace local validation.
Source: Open reference
Validation required - SHARED project proposal. LAND-CHANGE-1 local comparison and screening specification. This decision specification and its fictional worked example. Local class grouping, scope, sorting choices and intended use require confirmation in Institution review. Arithmetic, conversion, consistency and input handling are developer checks.
Source: Open reference
Published definitions and methodological guidance retain their publisher and locator. Local grouping, scope, sorting criteria and intended use remain project proposals. Record client and expert confirmation in Institution review only. Developer checks cover arithmetic, units, class conflicts, area closure, missing values and consistent output.
Acceptance. Apply scenarios LU A1 to LU A6 in SRS section 5 6. The 22 retained calculation/input checks and 14 purpose checks are prototype software evidence, not independent scientific or stakeholder acceptance.
6 4 Payments for Ecosystem Services
PES means payments for ecosystem services. In this fictional example, upstream farmer groups maintain riverbank vegetation and soil cover. An illustrative downstream water-user fund pays under an annual agreement. The intermediary keeps the agreement and evidence together; an independent checker checks the work.
Follow the example: agree the work and conditions; check the field record; calculate a proposal; then record separate authorisation and actual payment evidence.
Annual work record | Example |
|---|---|
Agreed area | 24 ha |
Checked area | 22 ha = 20 ha meeting conditions + 2 ha needing correction |
Area still to visit | 2 ha; checked 22 ha + unvisited 2 ha = agreed 24 ha |
Annual payment proposal | min(20 ha × LKR 12,500 per ha/year, LKR 300,000) = LKR 250,000 |
Funding and payment | LKR 200,000 available; funding confirmation missing. No amount ready for authorisation. Authorised = 0; paid = 0. |
These hectares show work compliance only. They do not prove cleaner water, additional environmental benefits or a monetary value of the ecosystem. Annual rates and caps are fictional agreement settings.
Checking possible displacement of land clearing
DEC-DP39-008 compares two fixed 200 ha observation areas using the same clearing definition, season and observation window. New clearing near the agreement increases from 0.6 ha to 1.4 ha; clearing in a separate comparison area increases from 0.4 ha to 0.5 ha. The two increases are 0.8 ha and 0.1 ha. Their difference is 0.7 ha. Investigate this signal; it does not prove that the agreement caused clearing.
DEC-DP39-007 uses the same published difference-of-changes arithmetic for ground cover: (85 − 60) − (67 − 62) = 20 percentage points. Comparable sites, baseline conditions and a defensible study design must be assessed before making a causal or additionality claim.
The 20 PES questions
Decision | Question |
|---|---|
001 | Which field checks are due? |
002 | How much agreed work passed the check? |
003 | What was checked, proposed and paid? |
004 | How much does a field check cost? |
005 | Is the scheme ready to start? |
006 | Can this group join the scheme? |
007 | Did the scheme add an environmental improvement? |
008 | Did land clearing move outside the agreement area? |
009 | Could the agreed work be lost or damaged? |
010 | Which service agreement is practical? |
011 | What payment can we propose? |
012 | How would the payment be shared? |
013 | Is the same work being claimed twice? |
014 | How should we measure the work and its benefits? |
015 | Is there enough money for the full agreement? |
016 | Could participation harm a household or its rights? |
017 | Which complaints need a response? |
018 | Is the checker independent? |
019 | Should the agreement continue, change or close? |
020 | Do the service name, unit and agreement match? |
Data needed
Obtain the versioned scheme and service agreement from its owner, the mapped area and rights/consent records from authorised custodians, field observations and signed protocol from the checker, and the rate schedule, funding commitment, authorisation and transaction references from the responsible payer. Record the original source, year, units, definitions, quality and permitted use. No approved Knuckles PES agreement or tariff is supplied by these examples.
Source basis
FAO, Payments for environmental services: what role in sustainable agricultural development?, ESA Working Paper 11-20, December 2011, section 2, printed pages 3–6: conditional agreements, additionality, displacement risks, durability and monitoring. Published institutional guidance; not a payment formula or a local rate.
https://www.fao.org/docrep/015/an456e/an456e00.pdf
World Bank, Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, chapter 7, Table 7.2, printed page 140: difference in differences = (treated after − before) − (comparison after − before). Verified published formula for the arithmetic used in DEC-DP39-007 and DEC-DP39-008. The publication does not verify these fictional data, the comparison design or a causal conclusion.
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/698441474029568469/pdf/Impact-evaluation-in-practice.pdf
The other PES rules are project checks or illustrative agreement arithmetic. Their status is Validation required. Use Institution review for local scheme authority, service definition, rights, safeguards, rate, funding, checking design and payment responsibility.
6 3 Domain Decision Rules
Published method status. Verified published formula means the calculation matches its cited publication. Verified published component covers only the named part. The decision register gives the publisher and exact locator. Confirm local inputs, settings and intended use through Institution review.
The current decision contracts cover the remaining 819 examples. LAND-CHANGE-1 retains DEC-DP01-001. All 820 IDs, 57 family IDs and existing institution routes remain. The 109 domain variants below separate different calculations while using the existing interface.
For each decision, Decision_Register.csv and the online appendix record its question, typed inputs and units, worked starting values, changed-input result, missing-input case, method version, source category and map role. Use the stable decision ID to move between its prototype view, appendix entry and Institution review. These are fictional worked records, not project findings.
Use a published method only for its supported component and stated input convention. Local source matching, parameters, intended use and authority remain separate. Published methods and items needing confirmation are listed in Institution review.
Common checks
Retain the observation period and analysis area. Check finite quantities, whole counts, ranges, dates, compatible definitions and source versions. Reconcile balances and cohort components. Unknown values stay missing; a zero denominator has no ratio. Compare recorded alternatives without inventing a score, causal effect or approval.
Reference maps
The corrected decision examples use locally stored authentic reference images where geographic context helps. The Matale and Kandy district locators do not show the fictional proposal, reservation or hazard areas. The first land-use example also links to source-derived 2015 and 2018 forest-class images of a regional window. Image years and sources remain separate from the numerical example years. Existing live maps elsewhere in the prototype are preserved; this correction does not add or verify a live spatial integration. Target spatial requirements retain their existing scope and approval status.
Realistic examples and published observations
Use meaningful labels such as Bg 300, pepper exports, water-service zones and Laggala Pallegama. The rice grouped-count fixture remains 586 plots with a separate 804 ha area denominator. Its counts and variety allocation are illustrative. DCS and DOA publications support the crop and variety context, not those counts or institutional adoption.
DCS publishes paddy yields for whole districts. In the all-schemes kg per net hectare column, Kandy is 2859 in 2024 Yala and 3761 in 2025 Yala; Matale is 4500 and 4302; Nuwara Eliya is 3905 and 3941. Retain the period and net-hectare basis. Seasonal differences do not establish a cause.
Sources: Department of Census and Statistics Sri Lanka, Paddy Statistics metric district tables for 2024 Yala and 2025 Yala, page 1, all-schemes average yield column. Government publication.
Explicit domain variants
Fragmentation
Total holding area / parcel count, alongside count and documented separation. This is a descriptive summary, not a validated fragmentation index or coordination decision. Result units: ha/parcel, parcels. Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP01-012. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Land change
Net=later−earlier; percentage=100×net/earlier when earlier>0. Matched transitions must reproduce net=gain−loss. Net totals alone do not establish conversion. Result units: ha, %. Same boundary, definitions, observation basis and adequate map quality are required. Coverage changes and classification error are not proven land-use change. Example boundaries and transitions are fictional.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP01-013, DEC-DP07-001, DEC-DP12-001. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Erosion area
Category share = 100 × category amount / total compatible category amounts. HHI = sum of squared fractional shares, displayed on a 0–1 scale. Result units: ha, %. Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP02-003. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Water productivity
Saleable crop output / Matching irrigation water input, for the same product, process and period. Result units: kg/m³.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP02-010, DEC-DP05-013, DEC-DP06-011, DEC-DP10-014. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Cost ha
Sum non-overlapping costs, then divide by the matching verified quantity for the same currency and accounting period. Result units: LKR/ha, LKR. An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP02-017, DEC-DP03-002, DEC-DP10-003, DEC-DP33-006. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Rice plots
Plot share =100 × distinct eligible plots in category / eligible plots in all categories. Sown-area shares use a separate hectare denominator; grouped inputs do not verify plot identity. Result units: plots, %. Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP03-001. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Dated variance
Observed date minus planned date in calendar days. Missing actual dates are pending, not zero delay. Approved working-day rules require a defined calendar. Result units: days.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP03-004, DEC-DP05-018, DEC-DP06-018, DEC-DP11-008, DEC-DP16-015, DEC-DP29-001, DEC-DP33-004. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Crop yield
Harvested crop output / Matching harvested crop area, for the same product, process and period. Result units: kg/ha.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP03-006, DEC-DP09-004. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Cash balance
Opening + receipts/additions − payments/reductions − other documented adjustments. Compare with independently recorded closing. A negative cash scenario is a shortfall, not an invalid water volume. Result units: LKR. Use the same physical boundary, period and units. A residual is a reconciliation issue, not automatically a measured loss.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP04-010, DEC-DP24-007, DEC-DP28-011, DEC-DP32-011, DEC-DP35-018, DEC-DP41-013. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Pump energy
Electric energy consumed / Water pumped, for the same product, process and period. Result units: kWh/m³.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP05-016, DEC-DP22-009. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Mahaweli plan
Compatible + conditional + reported conflict + unresolved area must equal total proposal area. Reported conflict share = 100 × conflict area / total proposal area. These are supplied area records, not a map calculation. Result units: ha, %. A percentage cannot establish plan compatibility or permission. Unresolved plan matches and conditions remain visible. The reference image is geographic context, not the source of these areas.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP06-008. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Mahaweli reservation
Reported overlap share = 100 × reported activity overlap / total observed activity area. Count common overlapping parts once in the supplied survey record. No map intersection is performed. Result units: ha, %. A reported overlap is not a finding of unlawful occupation. Confirm the applicable survey, reservation basis, permissions and inspection evidence. No fixed reservation width, eviction, penalty or safety determination is inferred.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP06-009. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Probability forecast
Brier score = mean((event probability−observed0/1)²). Skill=1−Brier/reference Brier when the same-case reference score is positive. Result units: 0–1. Define one event, lead, observation category thresholds and an independent reference. Do not apply rainfall RMSE to probabilities or interpret one score as complete calibration. The reference probability is a fictional independent benchmark, not an estimated climatological probability. Define the whole seasonal verification interval and category before observing the outcome.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP08-008. Sources: DD-BRIER, DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Series mismatch
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. Result units: items.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP08-011. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Point overlay
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. Result units: %, households. 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.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP08-016, DEC-DP16-012, DEC-DP17-003. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Numeric mismatch
Later/comparison value minus Earlier/source value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Earlier/source value when the earlier value is positive. Result units: mm, %. Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP08-018, DEC-DP10-019, DEC-DP14-002, DEC-DP17-010, DEC-DP23-014, DEC-DP23-017, DEC-DP24-006, DEC-DP25-017, DEC-DP40-009. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Lineage
Follow recorded upstream→downstream links within the same scope and period. Flag missing links; a confirmed defect identifies downstream linked candidates for authorized investigation. Result units: items. Recorded lineage is not proof of product identity or recall authority. Preserve multi-source batches, transfers and versions; do not clear unlinked lots as safe.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP09-013, DEC-DP18-012, DEC-DP34-017, DEC-DP36-016. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Variety area
Category share = 100 × category amount / total compatible category amounts. HHI = sum of squared fractional shares, displayed on a 0–1 scale. Result units: ha, %. Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP10-001. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Cost progress
100 × spending/phased budget, and verified−planned physical progress. Do not subtract LKR from physical progress, infer earned value or equate expenditure with outcomes. Result units: %, percentage points.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP11-002. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Study design
Check whether the question has a defined outcome, appropriate study design, comparison, baseline/follow-up, sampling, confounding and attrition evidence. Do not manufacture an effect estimate from missing design information. Result units: items. The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP12-007, DEC-DP35-004, DEC-DP40-012. Sources: S92, DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Location mismatch
Display supplied location separation with the two reported accuracies and coordinate-reference evidence. Do not treat a matched name or boundary overlap as confirmed identity. Result units: m.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP13-004, DEC-DP31-004. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Feature changes
Changed-feature share = 100 × documented changed features / matching feature frame. Unchanged-or-no-reported-change = frame − changed − unknown. No material-change threshold is inferred. Result units: %, features. Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP14-011. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Survey cost
Sum non-overlapping survey costs and divide by verified kilometres of the same survey work/terrain class. This does not compare unlike cadastral cases by an undefined survey count. Result units: LKR/km surveyed, LKR. An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP14-018. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Schema mismatch
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. Result units: items.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP15-010. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Damage loss
Asset quantity × replacement/repair unit cost. Show interrupted economic flows separately; no automatic damage+flow total or double counting. Result units: LKR, LKR/period. An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP16-002. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Weighted proportion
Weighted proportion = sum(weight×indicator0/1)/sum(weight). Report the classification and eligible population; use design information for uncertainty. Result units: 0 or1. Retain sampling frame, strata, clusters, nonresponse and calibration. The prototype does not invent complex-design variance, confidence intervals or small-area precision. These fictional binary observations demonstrate design weighting. Do not pool changed definitions, population frames or reference periods; no official rate or design variance is produced.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP20-001, DEC-DP20-015. Sources: S91, DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Survey precision
Relative standard error=100×design-based SE/abs(estimate), only for a nonzero estimate and an actually supplied design-based SE. Sample count alone does not determine geographic precision. Result units: %. Retain sampling frame, strata, clusters, nonresponse and calibration. The prototype does not invent complex-design variance, confidence intervals or small-area precision. The estimate and standard error are fictional monthly household-income statistics. The 20% review criterion is illustrative; sample count alone does not supply a design-based standard error.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP20-003. Sources: S91, DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Publication revision
Match the exact statistical series and version used by each listed publication against its replacement version. A publication using an older version, or with unknown update evidence, needs revision review. Count each listed publication once. Result units: publications. Only documented dependency records are checked. This does not discover unlisted publications or amend a published statistical estimate.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP20-004. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Weighted area production
Estimated production=sum(weight×production); estimated harvested area=sum(weight×area); aggregate yield=estimated production/estimated area. Do not average individual yields without the matching denominator. Result units: kg/ha. Retain sampling frame, strata, clusters, nonresponse and calibration. The prototype does not invent complex-design variance, confidence intervals or small-area precision.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP20-013. Sources: S91, DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Groundwater trend
Display observations in dated order. Sample SD uses n−1; coefficient of variation = 100 × SD / positive mean. Result units: m. Groundwater head and depth below ground have opposite directional meanings. Match datum, pumping state and seasonal context; observed drawdown is not itself a safe-yield estimate. Heads refer to an arbitrary stated datum. Compare pumping state, season and measurement method; do not calculate relative percentage or infer sustainable abstraction.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP21-001. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Aquifer balance
Calculated closing = opening + inflows − releases/transfers − other outflows. Residual = independently observed closing − calculated closing. Result units: m³. A storage-change calculation needs a defined aquifer boundary and compatible volume estimates. Groundwater head in metres is not a storage volume; uncertainty and safe-abstraction review remain separate.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP21-007. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Well proximity
Display measured separation with hydrogeological direction, source type and the reviewed protection criterion. Distance alone cannot determine contamination, safety or a statutory protection area. Result units: m. 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.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP21-008. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Drilling
Drilling cost / completed depth. Display tested yield and the stated success definition separately; cost per metre does not determine safe abstraction. Result units: LKR/m, L/s.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP21-016. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Billed water
NRW=input−billed authorized use. Water losses=NRW−unbilled authorized use. Residual real loss=water losses−estimated apparent losses, only when all components are available. Result units: m³, %. NRW is not all leakage. An unknown apparent-loss estimate keeps residual real loss unavailable. Meter uncertainty and matching time/zone boundaries matter.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP22-001. Sources: DD-NRW, DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Leakage evidence
NRW=input−billed authorized use. Water losses=NRW−unbilled authorized use. Residual real loss=water losses−estimated apparent losses, only when all components are available. Result units: m³, %. NRW is not all leakage. An unknown apparent-loss estimate keeps residual real loss unavailable. Meter uncertainty and matching time/zone boundaries matter.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP22-002. Sources: DD-NRW, DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Supply outages
Time availability = 100 × (stated window − union of no-supply intervals) / positive stated window. Record interruption count and longest duration separately; count overlapping outage intervals once. Result units: %, events, hours. This is a fictional return for one stated supply zone and window. Time availability does not establish water quality, pressure, equitable household access or operational continuity.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP22-011. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Food basket
Basket cost = rice kg × rice LKR/kg + red-dhal kg × red-dhal LKR/kg + white-sugar kg × white-sugar LKR/kg. Compare locations only for the same quantities, product specifications, currency and price period. Result units: LKR. This is a fictional three-item basket with stated quantities. It is not an official consumer-price index, nutritional basket, current market quotation or household expenditure estimate.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP25-006. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Input expenditure
Specified quantity × comparable unit price. Sum only non-overlapping items from the same basket specification, location and price period. Result units: LKR. An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable. Fictional same-grade urea prices are in LKR/kg. Quantity and unit price effects are kept separate; no current market price is implied.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP25-011. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Labour
Cash cost/ha = hired days×cash wage/area. Total effort/ha=(hired+unpaid family days)/area. Do not value unpaid labour as zero opportunity cost. Result units: LKR/ha, person-days/ha.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP25-013. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Export composition
Compute export-value and quantity shares independently within compatible product and reporting frames; never add currency and kilograms. Result units: LKR, %. Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP26-001. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Export unit value
Recorded export value / Export quantity on matching product basis, for the same product, process and period. Result units: LKR/kg. A unit value mixes prices and product composition. It is not automatically a like-for-like market price. Match grade, product code, currency and period.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP26-004, DEC-DP37-004. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Human match
Match documented expertise, available effort, date windows and required conflict/clearance evidence. A match suggests a candidate; it appoints nobody. Result units: hours. A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP27-007, DEC-DP40-011, DEC-DP41-012. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Business retention
Lower =100 × known survivors / original cohort. Upper =100 × (known survivors + unknown) / original cohort. Survivors + known failures + unknown = original cohort; replacements do not enter it. Result units: %, enterprises. These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP27-009. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Plot match
Compare the same specification and unit, uncommitted quantity and overlapping delivery windows. Keep mandatory quality and use conditions explicit. Result units: m². A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. Matching text and area do not establish actual utility capacity, rights, environmental permission or a plot allocation.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP28-001. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Resource efficiency
Energy/output; water/output; and 100 × output/material input. Separate denominators and units; do not sum these efficiencies. Result units: kWh/kg, m³/kg, %.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP28-006, DEC-DP34-011. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Feedback
Category share = 100 × category amount / total compatible category amounts. HHI = sum of squared fractional shares, displayed on a 0–1 scale. Result units: cases, %. Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP31-020. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Cash timing
Order the supplied dated receipts and payments. Start with the stated opening cash; add each receipt and subtract each payment once. Minimum cash is the lowest chronological balance, including opening cash. Shortfall = max(0, −minimum cash). Closing cash is opening + receipts − payments. Result units: LKR. These are dated fictional cash assumptions, not actual bank balances or a credit recommendation. A positive closing balance can conceal an earlier shortage. Same-day receipt/payment ordering needs evidence.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP33-007, DEC-DP36-011, DEC-DP37-016, DEC-DP38-018. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Buyer offer
Net receipt per initial kg = quoted buyer price × (1 − assumed mass loss% / 100) − matching transfer/handling cost per initial kg. Do not subtract a trader purchase price from a farmer’s own produce. Result units: LKR/initial kg. Quotes, loss assumptions and costs are fictional. Compare matching grades, weighing bases, payment timing and terms. The result does not authorize a purchase, sale, financing or supply agreement.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP33-014. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Cost output
Sum non-overlapping costs, then divide by the matching verified quantity for the same currency and accounting period. Result units: LKR/kg green leaf, LKR. An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable. The denominator is green leaf, not made tea. Compare the same moisture, weighing, cost and accounting-period basis.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP34-001. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Mass conversion
Gross recovery = 100 × made-tea mass / received green-leaf mass, on the explicitly stated incoming and outgoing moisture bases. This is not a dry-matter conversion efficiency. Result units: %. The fictional tea example uses 1,200 kg green leaf and 270 kg made tea. The unrepresented mass includes water removed and cannot all be called waste.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP34-010, DEC-DP37-001. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Procurement offer
Landed cost per retained kg = (purchase price per initial kg + matching transfer/handling cost per initial kg) / (1 − assumed mass loss% / 100), only when some mass is retained. Result units: LKR/retained kg, LKR/initial kg. Quotes, loss assumptions and costs are fictional. Compare matching grades, weighing bases, payment timing and terms. The result does not authorize a purchase, sale, financing or supply agreement.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP36-002. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Tonne km
Shipment cost / (actual load tonnes × verified route kilometres). Match empty-return treatment and cost allocation. Result units: LKR/(t km). An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP37-002. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Affected lots
Follow recorded upstream→downstream links within the same scope and period. Flag missing links; a confirmed defect identifies downstream linked candidates for authorized investigation. Result units: items. Recorded lineage is not proof of product identity or recall authority. Preserve multi-source batches, transfers and versions; do not clear unlinked lots as safe.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP37-009. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Process energy
Energy consumed / Saleable product output, for the same product, process and period. Result units: kWh/kg.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP37-011. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Verification cost
Total checking cost = staff + travel + other non-overlapping costs. Cost per accepted hectare = total / accepted hectares. A zero accepted area has no unit-cost result. Result units: LKR/ha, LKR. Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP39-004. Sources: DD-LOCAL, PES-FAO. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Followup retention
Lower =100 × known survivors / original cohort. Upper =100 × (known survivors + unknown) / original cohort. Survivors + known failures + unknown = original cohort; replacements do not enter it. Result units: %, participants. These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits.
Decision bindings: DEC-DP40-016, DEC-DP41-017. Sources: DD-LOCAL. Exact per-decision inputs and evidence remain in the controlled decision register.
Mahaweli worked cases
DEC-DP06-008 Does this proposed use fit the system plan?
Fictional 2025 case in the Laggala Pallegama area. The Matale district image linked from this decision is geographic context; it does not establish Mahaweli jurisdiction, an official proposal boundary, a system plan or a reservation line.
Input | Starting value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
Case and version | Proposal 1 / 2025 — fictional | |
Place and responsible system office | Laggala Pallegama geographic context; applicable Mahaweli system jurisdiction must be established | |
Boundary and source edition | Fictional survey record / edition 1 | |
Matching survey and area definitions available in this example | Provided | |
Proposed land use | Agricultural storage and access — fictional proposal | |
Applicable plan and version | Fictional system plan / edition 1 | |
Applicable plan and rules available in this example | Provided | |
Total proposal area | 10 | ha |
Area matching the stated plan use | 4 | ha |
Area with conditions to review | 3 | ha |
Area with a reported plan conflict | 2 | ha |
Area without a confirmed plan match | 1 | ha |
Conditions and rule reference | Fictional conditions: check access and drainage; no official threshold is supplied | |
Affected tenure and rights evidence | Missing |
Result. 10 ha proposed: 4 ha match the example plan, 3 ha have conditions, 2 ha have a reported conflict (20.0%), and 1 ha remain unmatched. No land-use permission is granted.
Changed input. Area matching the stated plan use = 3; Area with a reported plan conflict = 3. 10 ha proposed: 3 ha match the example plan, 3 ha have conditions, 3 ha have a reported conflict (30.0%), and 1 ha remain unmatched. No land-use permission is granted.
Missing source. Without the matching system plan and survey evidence, withhold the numerical result and request the missing source. No permission, violation, fixed reservation width or enforcement action is inferred.
Requirements: FR063, FR095, SH-GEO-FEAT-014, SH-GEO-FEAT-020. Method MAHAWELI-1. The online appendix entry, decision page and Institution review use this same stable decision ID.
DEC-DP06-009 Does this activity overlap a reservoir or canal reservation?
Fictional 2025 case in the Laggala Pallegama area. The Matale district image linked from this decision is geographic context; it does not establish Mahaweli jurisdiction, an official proposal boundary, a system plan or a reservation line.
Input | Starting value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
Case and version | Inspection 1 / 2025 — fictional | |
Place and responsible system office | Laggala Pallegama geographic context; applicable Mahaweli system jurisdiction must be established | |
Boundary and source edition | Fictional survey record / edition 1 | |
Matching survey and area definitions available in this example | Provided | |
Reservoir or canal and case reference | Reservoir-side activity — fictional Matale inspection case | |
Activity observed | Temporary material storage — fictional observation | |
Inspection date | 2025-06-12 | |
Reservation survey and basis available in this example | Provided | |
Total observed activity area | 0.6 | ha |
Reported activity area inside the reservation | 0.15 | ha |
Matching permission record | Missing | |
Permission reference or reason it is unknown | No matching permission has been supplied in this fictional case | |
Maintenance access reported obstructed | Unknown |
Result. 0.15 ha of the 0.6 ha observed activity is reported inside the reservation (25.0%). A matching permission is missing or disputed. This does not establish unlawful occupation.
Changed input. Reported activity area inside the reservation = 0.18. 0.18 ha of the 0.6 ha observed activity is reported inside the reservation (30.0%). A matching permission is missing or disputed. This does not establish unlawful occupation.
Missing source. Without the matching reservation survey and basis, withhold the numerical result and request the missing source. No permission, violation, fixed reservation width or enforcement action is inferred.
Requirements: FR063, FR095, SH-GEO-FEAT-014, SH-GEO-FEAT-020. Method MAHAWELI-1. The online appendix entry, decision page and Institution review use this same stable decision ID.
Reference image sources
Matale District location in Sri Lanka. 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 of the published image only; no geographic features, points, labels or scenario overlays added.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Lanka_districts_Matale.svg
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Kandy District location in Sri Lanka. Reference map image — not live. Kandy District location in Sri Lanka. Map date: 2012-07-30. Uwe Dedering; uploaded by BishkekRocks. CC BY-SA 3.0. Detail crop of the published image only; no geographic features, points, labels or scenario overlays added.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sri_Lanka_districts_Kandy.svg
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
30 × 30 km historical map window around Knuckles; not a project boundary. Reference map image — not live. Copernicus land cover, 2015, 100 m. Contains modified Copernicus Service information (2020). Copernicus Global Land Service. Copernicus Global Land product licence. Previously prepared local crop and binary forest-class colouring. No new spatial processing in this correction.
https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/licences/Copernicus-Global-Land-product-licence
30 × 30 km historical map window around Knuckles; not a project boundary. Reference map image — not live. Copernicus land cover, 2018, 100 m. Contains modified Copernicus Service information (2020). Copernicus Global Land Service. Copernicus Global Land product licence. Previously prepared local crop and binary forest-class colouring. No new spatial processing in this correction.
https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/licences/Copernicus-Global-Land-product-licence
Additional source locators
DD-WATER — FAO56 root-zone water balance — Institution publication
Chapter8 equation85 and ETc = Kc ETo. Daily water balance components; local coefficients and operating assumptions still need review.
https://www.fao.org/4/X0490E/x0490e0e.htm
DD-PESTICIDES — Sri Lanka Registrar of Pesticides — Government publication
Current registration lists, restrictions and label guidance. Registration and label evidence; no treatment recommendation or automatic permission.
https://doa.gov.lk/rop-downloads/
DD-CEA — CEA ambient water regulations — Government publication
Gazette2148/20, Schedule of use-specific categories. Published ambient water categories and limits; do not substitute them for drinking-water, effluent, air or noise rules.
https://www.cea.lk/web/images/pdf/epc/2148-20_E-1.pdf
DD-BRIER — JMA numerical weather prediction outline — Government publication
AppendixA.3, equationsA.3.1 and A.3.3. Brier score and reference skill for binary probability forecasts; the prototype uses one specified event, not an undifferentiated seasonal score.
https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/nwp/outline2022-nwp/pdf/outline2022_all.pdf
DD-NRW — JICA non-revenue water training materials — Institution publication
Training materials, section1.1, IWA water-balance table. NRW, unbilled authorized use, apparent and real losses are distinct components.
https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12364485_03.pdf
DD-ILO — ILO controlling occupational risks — Institution publication
Controlling risks; hierarchy of controls. Evidence-led control review; no universal numeric risk score or clearance.
DD-GBIF — GBIF biological survey publishing guide — Institution publication
Version1.0.2, sections5.4 to5.7 and7.3. Survey event, effort, protocol, sampling scope and non-detection context; not a population estimator.
https://docs.gbif.org/guide-publishing-survey-data/en/
DD-LOCAL — 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.
Published ecosystem accounting context: United Nations DESA, System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Ecosystem Accounting, December 2024, publication entry and SEEA account definitions. Extent, condition, physical service flows and monetary accounts remain separate. The publication entry is available; direct PDF retrieval returned access denied during checking. Obtain the full current method before operational account compilation.
Find a decision
Find the inputs, worked example, calculation and sources for each decision.
Download the decision register · Institution review
820 candidate decisions
| Decision | Question and inputs | Calculation, sources and scope |
|---|---|---|
| DEC-DP01-001DP01 | Land change Prioritize divisions with material land-use change Inputs and exampleDivision and fixed analysis area; earlier/later years; native category/code and mapping; area and unit; dataset/boundary/class/method versions; missing and unclassified extent; source, coverage and local quality; optional matched from/to parcel evidence Result: Change (ha) Limits Complete compatible endpoints only; missing is not zero; reject conflicting source mappings; unresolved categories remain excluded; no invented balancing area, action threshold, confidence interval or causal conclusion. Sorting is a proposed review aid. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CHANGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-002DP01 | Development screening Refer proposed developments overlapping constraints Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — development screening. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-003DP01 | Planning coverage Commission missing divisional land-use plans Inputs and exampleDivisions in this reporting record [divisions]; Divisions with a current applicable plan [divisions]; Divisions whose plan status is unknown [divisions] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; divisions; divisions) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — planning coverage. Divisions in this reporting record = 1 divisions; Divisions with a current applicable plan = 0 divisions; Divisions whose plan status is unknown = 0 divisions. Results: Verified coverage = 0 %; Known uncovered = 1 divisions; Unknown coverage = 0 divisions. Changed input. Change Divisions with a current applicable plan = 1. Result: Verified coverage = 100 %; Known uncovered = 0 divisions; Unknown coverage = 0 divisions. Check the missing or outdated plan. Missing input. Omit Divisions in this reporting record: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-004DP01 | Field verification Investigate field and map classification disagreements Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — field verification. Original source value/definition = Forest class in land-cover register; Comparison source value/definition = Agroforestry class in field return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-005DP01 | Agricultural suitability Shortlist land uses compatible with local conditions Inputs and exampleLand polygon; Land polygon evidence reference; soil depth; soil depth evidence reference; slope degrees; slope degrees evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; water access; water access evidence reference; crop requirements; crop requirements evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — agricultural suitability. Land polygon = Missing; Land polygon evidence reference = ; soil depth = Documented; soil depth evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; slope degrees = Documented; slope degrees evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rainfall = Documented; rainfall evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; water access = Documented; water access evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; crop requirements = Documented; crop requirements evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Land polygon = Documented; Land polygon evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Land polygon: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-006DP01 | Land conversion Refer land-conversion applications for determination Inputs and exampleApplication ID; Application ID evidence reference; current use; current use evidence reference; proposed use; proposed use evidence reference; ownership evidence; ownership evidence evidence reference; applicable rules; applicable rules evidence reference; objections; objections evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land conversion. Application ID = Missing; Application ID evidence reference = ; current use = Documented; current use evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; proposed use = Documented; proposed use evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; ownership evidence = Documented; ownership evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; applicable rules = Documented; applicable rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; objections = Documented; objections evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Application ID = Documented; Application ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Application ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S01, S53, S63 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP01-007DP01 | Settlement planning Compare candidate settlement expansion areas Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Infill near existing services. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional infill near existing services option: compare the documented Candidate polygon, service capacity.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-008DP01 | Idle land Prioritize investigations of uncultivated suitable land Inputs and exampleHectares already assessed as suitable within this frame [ha]; Those hectares currently cultivated [ha]; Hectares with unknown cultivation status [ha] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; ha; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — idle land. Hectares already assessed as suitable within this frame = 100 ha; Those hectares currently cultivated = 65 ha; Hectares with unknown cultivation status = 5 ha. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 ha; Unknown coverage = 5 ha. Changed input. Change Hectares already assessed as suitable within this frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 ha; Unknown coverage = 5 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Hectares already assessed as suitable within this frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Suitability and tenure must be established separately; coverage does not identify suitable land. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-009DP01 | Wetland protection Flag proposed activities overlapping mapped wetlands Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — wetland protection. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-010DP01 | Riparian protection Refer activities inside reviewed river reservations Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — riparian protection. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-011DP01 | Tenure conflicts Resolve unresolved tenure objections before planning Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — tenure conflicts. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-012DP01 | Fragmentation Identify fragmented agricultural holdings for coordination Inputs and exampleParcels in the same holding [plots]; Holding total area [ha]; Largest documented inter-parcel separation [m]; Holding and tenure reference Result: Mean parcel area; Parcel count (ha/parcel; parcels) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — fragmentation. Parcels in the same holding = 4 plots; Holding total area = 2.8 ha; Largest documented inter-parcel separation = 1,200 m; Holding and tenure reference = Laggala Pallegama paddy holding scenario. Results: Mean parcel area = 0.7 ha/parcel; Parcel count = 4 parcels. Changed input. Change Parcels in the same holding = 5. Result: Mean parcel area = 0.56 ha/parcel; Parcel count = 5 parcels. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Parcels in the same holding: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COMPOSITIONImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-013DP01 | Urban expansion Review loss of agricultural land to built development Inputs and exampleEarlier mapped class area [ha]; Later mapped class area [ha]; Matched area leaving the class [ha]; Matched area entering the class [ha]; Same fixed analysis extent [ha]; Native class and mapping version; Earlier observation date; Later observation date Result: Net class-area change; Relative class-area change; Gross loss from class; Gross gain to class (ha; %; ha; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — urban expansion. Earlier mapped class area = 100 ha; Later mapped class area = 90 ha; Matched area leaving the class = 18 ha; Matched area entering the class = 8 ha; Same fixed analysis extent = 200 ha; Native class and mapping version = Sample matching forest/land-use class; Earlier observation date = 2024-06-30; Later observation date = 2025-06-30. Results: Net class-area change = -10 ha; Relative class-area change = -10 %; Gross loss from class = 18 ha; Gross gain to class = 8 ha. Changed input. Change Later mapped class area = 91; Matched area entering the class = 9. Result: Net class-area change = -9 ha; Relative class-area change = -9 %; Gross loss from class = 18 ha; Gross gain to class = 9 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Earlier mapped class area: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Same boundary, definitions, observation basis and adequate map quality are required. Coverage changes and classification error are not proven land-use change. Example boundaries and transitions are fictional. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CHANGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-014DP01 | Service access Compare access improvements for isolated planning areas Inputs and exampleSupplied journey distance from a documented route survey [km]; Supplied journey duration; not calculated here [minutes]; Usable vehicle/team capacity [units]; Required capacity [units]; Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window Result: Estimated travel time; Capacity minus demand (minutes; units) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service access. 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. Results: Estimated travel time = 65 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Changed input. Change Supplied journey duration; not calculated here = 75. Result: Estimated travel time = 75 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Resolve access/capacity evidence. Missing input. Omit Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ROUTEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-015DP01 | Restoration planning Compare restoration land-use alternatives Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Assisted natural regeneration. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional assisted natural regeneration option: compare the documented Site condition, restoration options.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-016DP01 | Land degradation Target detailed soil-loss assessment in planning units Inputs and exampleRainfall erosivity [MJ mm/(ha h year)]; Soil erodibility [t ha h/(ha MJ mm)]; Slope-length and steepness factor [ratio]; Cover-management factor [fraction]; Support-practice factor [fraction] Result: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss (t/ha/year) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land degradation. Rainfall erosivity = 950 MJ mm/(ha h year); Soil erodibility = 0.035 t ha h/(ha MJ mm); Slope-length and steepness factor = 2.8 ratio; Cover-management factor = 0.24 fraction; Support-practice factor = 0.7 fraction. Results: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss = 15.641 t/ha/year. Changed input. Change Rainfall erosivity = 951. Result: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss = 15.657 t/ha/year. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Rainfall erosivity: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits This USLE factor product is not a full RUSLE2 run, measured loss, delivered sediment, gully loss or landslide forecast. Local factors and uncertainty need review. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · USLE factor product United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service · 1980 technical publication SA-TP 11; Universal Soil Loss Equation, printed page 2; metric conversion appendix, printed page 40 Government publication - United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service EROSIONImplementation: prototype Method source: S80 |
| DEC-DP01-017DP01 | Plan implementation Investigate differences between planned and actual use Inputs and exampleHectares planned for the selected land-use class [ha]; Hectares observed in that same class [ha] Result: Difference; Relative change (ha; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — plan implementation. Hectares planned for the selected land-use class = 100 ha; Hectares observed in that same class = 90 ha. Results: Difference = -10 ha; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Hectares planned for the selected land-use class = 101. Result: Difference = -11 ha; Relative change = -10.891 %. Check the class, period and implementation evidence. Missing input. Omit Hectares planned for the selected land-use class: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-018DP01 | Public consultation Resolve outstanding planning consultations Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — public consultation. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-019DP01 | Map documentation Correct incomplete land-use layer metadata Inputs and exampleLayer ID; Layer ID evidence reference; scale; scale evidence reference; coordinate system; coordinate system evidence reference; classification edition; classification edition evidence reference; owner; owner evidence reference; survey date; survey date evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — map documentation. Layer ID = Missing; Layer ID evidence reference = ; scale = Documented; scale evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; coordinate system = Documented; coordinate system evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; classification edition = Documented; classification edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; owner = Documented; owner evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; survey date = Documented; survey date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Layer ID = Documented; Layer ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Layer ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP01-020DP01 | Survey scheduling Schedule priority land-use map updates Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — survey scheduling. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-001DP02 | Erosion Select land units requiring erosion-control assessment Inputs and exampleRainfall erosivity [MJ mm/(ha h year)]; Soil erodibility [t ha h/(ha MJ mm)]; Slope-length and steepness factor [ratio]; Cover-management factor [fraction]; Support-practice factor [fraction] Result: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss (t/ha/year) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — erosion. Rainfall erosivity = 950 MJ mm/(ha h year); Soil erodibility = 0.035 t ha h/(ha MJ mm); Slope-length and steepness factor = 2.8 ratio; Cover-management factor = 0.24 fraction; Support-practice factor = 0.7 fraction. Results: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss = 15.641 t/ha/year. Changed input. Change Rainfall erosivity = 951. Result: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss = 15.657 t/ha/year. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Rainfall erosivity: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits This USLE factor product is not a full RUSLE2 run, measured loss, delivered sediment, gully loss or landslide forecast. Local factors and uncertainty need review. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · USLE factor product United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service · 1980 technical publication SA-TP 11; Universal Soil Loss Equation, printed page 2; metric conversion appendix, printed page 40 Government publication - United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service EROSIONImplementation: prototype Method source: S80 |
| DEC-DP02-002DP02 | Conservation treatments Compare contouring mulching and cover-crop alternatives Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Contour grass strips. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional contour grass strips option: compare the documented Treatment options, erosion-model inputs.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-003DP02 | Erosion classes Allocate survey effort across reviewed erosion classes Inputs and exampleMapped area in the stated erosion class [ha]; Area with accepted observations [ha]; Native class/variety and definition edition Result: Class area; Share of selected mapped area; Class observation coverage (ha; %; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Very low assessed erosion. Mapped area in the stated erosion class = 120 ha; Area with accepted observations = 72 ha; Native class/variety and definition edition = Very low assessed erosion / stated scenario definition 1. Results: Class area = 120 ha; Share of selected mapped area = 4.762 %; Class observation coverage = 60 %. Changed input. Change Mapped area in the stated erosion class = 121. Result: Class area = 121 ha; Share of selected mapped area = 4.8 %; Class observation coverage = 59.504 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Mapped area in the stated erosion class: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. total = 2,520; hhi = 0.206 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COMPOSITIONImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-004DP02 | Soil carbon Select sites for comparable soil-carbon monitoring Inputs and exampleSoil organic carbon [%]; Fine-earth bulk-density basis [t/m³]; Sample depth [m]; Coarse-fragment volume fraction [%]; Sampling depth, design and density convention Result: Soil-carbon stock (t C/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — soil carbon. Soil organic carbon = 1.8 %; Fine-earth bulk-density basis = 1.25 t/m³; Sample depth = 0.3 m; Coarse-fragment volume fraction = 12 %; Sampling depth, design and density convention = Sample matched depth and fine-earth convention. Results: Soil-carbon stock = 59.4 t C/ha. Changed input. Change Soil organic carbon = 1.818. Result: Soil-carbon stock = 59.994 t C/ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Soil organic carbon: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A carbon concentration is not a stock. Change comparisons require consistent depth/mass, sampling, density convention and uncertainty review. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Soil-carbon stock with volume correction Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change · Section 4.3.3.5.4, equation 4.3.3, printed page 4.106, PDF page 18 Institution publication - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change SOILCARBONImplementation: prototype Method source: S79 |
| DEC-DP02-005DP02 | Soil fertility Refer nutrient and acidity limitations for agronomic advice Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [pH]; Example lower comparison bound [pH]; Example upper comparison bound [pH]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (pH) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — soil fertility. Parameter and applicable use = Soil pH; Measured result = 6.2 pH; Example lower comparison bound = 5.5 pH; Example upper comparison bound = 7.5 pH; Original and limit unit = pH; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 6.2 pH. Changed input. Change Measured result = 6.262. Result: Measured value = 6.262 pH. Within example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-006DP02 | Salinity Prioritize investigations of salinity-affected land Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [dS/m]; Example lower comparison bound [dS/m]; Example upper comparison bound [dS/m]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (dS/m) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — salinity. Parameter and applicable use = Soil electrical conductivity; Measured result = 2.8 dS/m; Example lower comparison bound = 0 dS/m; Example upper comparison bound = 2 dS/m; Original and limit unit = dS/m; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 2.8 dS/m. Changed input. Change Measured result = 2.828. Result: Measured value = 2.828 dS/m. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-007DP02 | Soil compaction Select plots needing compaction management assessment Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [g/cm³]; Example lower comparison bound [g/cm³]; Example upper comparison bound [g/cm³]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (g/cm³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — soil compaction. Parameter and applicable use = Soil bulk density at stated depth/moisture; Measured result = 1.65 g/cm³; Example lower comparison bound = 0 g/cm³; Example upper comparison bound = 1.5 g/cm³; Original and limit unit = g/cm³; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 1.65 g/cm³. Changed input. Change Measured result = 1.666. Result: Measured value = 1.666 g/cm³. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-008DP02 | Infiltration Compare practices to improve infiltration and runoff control Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Mulch with soil-cover management. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional mulch with soil-cover management option: compare the documented Infiltration tests, rainfall intensity.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-009DP02 | Water harvesting Shortlist suitable farm water-harvesting locations Inputs and exampleCatchment geometry; Catchment geometry evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; storage sites; storage sites evidence reference; soil permeability; soil permeability evidence reference; access; access evidence reference; constraints; constraints evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — water harvesting. Catchment geometry = Missing; Catchment geometry evidence reference = ; rainfall = Documented; rainfall evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; storage sites = Documented; storage sites evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; soil permeability = Documented; soil permeability evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; access = Documented; access evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; constraints = Documented; constraints evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Catchment geometry = Documented; Catchment geometry evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Catchment geometry: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-010DP02 | On-farm irrigation Select improvements for low water productivity Inputs and exampleSaleable crop output [kg]; Matching irrigation water input [m³] Result: Crop water productivity (kg/m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — on-farm irrigation. Saleable crop output = 19,780 kg; Matching irrigation water input = 7,200 m³. Results: Crop water productivity = 2.747 kg/m³. Changed input. Change Saleable crop output = 19,781. Result: Crop water productivity = 2.747 kg/m³. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Saleable crop output: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-011DP02 | Watershed treatments Prioritize connected watershed conservation interventions Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Upper-slope soil cover. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional upper-slope soil cover option: compare the documented Catchment units, erosion risk.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-012DP02 | Conservation inspection Follow up incomplete conservation works Inputs and exampleWork ID; Work ID evidence reference; approved design; approved design evidence reference; inspection items; inspection items evidence reference; photographs; photographs evidence reference; completion evidence; completion evidence evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — conservation inspection. Work ID = Missing; Work ID evidence reference = ; approved design = Documented; approved design evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection items = Documented; inspection items evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; photographs = Documented; photographs evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; completion evidence = Documented; completion evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Work ID = Documented; Work ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Work ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-013DP02 | Agroclimate advice Issue evidence packages for local agricultural advisories Inputs and exampleComparable seasonal rainfall reference [mm]; Observed seasonal rainfall [mm] Result: Difference; Relative change (mm; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — agroclimate advice. Comparable seasonal rainfall reference = 120 mm; Observed seasonal rainfall = 84 mm. Results: Difference = -36 mm; Relative change = -30 %. Changed input. Change Comparable seasonal rainfall reference = 121. Result: Difference = -37 mm; Relative change = -30.579 %. Prepare the rainfall evidence for an agronomist; no crop advice is generated. Missing input. Omit Comparable seasonal rainfall reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ANOMALYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-014DP02 | Monitoring network Repair incomplete soil and weather observation coverage Inputs and exampleExpected observations in the window [observations]; Distinct valid observations [observations]; Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval [days] Result: Completeness; Age of latest observation; Missing observations (%; days; observations) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — monitoring network. Expected observations in the window = 30 observations; Distinct valid observations = 24 observations; Latest valid observation = 2025-06-28; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Required observation interval = 1 days. Results: Completeness = 80 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 6 observations. Changed input. Change Expected observations in the window = 31. Result: Completeness = 77.419 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 7 observations. Check overdue observation. Missing input. Omit Expected observations in the window: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FRESHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-015DP02 | Crop suitability Review limiting soil and climate factors for proposed crops Inputs and exampleSoil depth; Soil depth evidence reference; texture; texture evidence reference; slope; slope evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; temperature; temperature evidence reference; crop requirements; crop requirements evidence reference; irrigation; irrigation evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — crop suitability. Soil depth = Missing; Soil depth evidence reference = ; texture = Documented; texture evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; slope = Documented; slope evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rainfall = Documented; rainfall evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; temperature = Documented; temperature evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; crop requirements = Documented; crop requirements evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; irrigation = Documented; irrigation evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Soil depth = Documented; Soil depth evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Soil depth: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-016DP02 | Demonstration trials Evaluate conservation practice outcomes Inputs and exampleTreatment Measured runoff before [mm/season]; Treatment Measured runoff after [mm/season]; Comparison Measured runoff before [mm/season]; Comparison Measured runoff after [mm/season]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (mm/season) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — demonstration trials. Treatment Measured runoff before = 42 mm/season; Treatment Measured runoff after = 59 mm/season; Comparison Measured runoff before = 39 mm/season; Comparison Measured runoff after = 46 mm/season; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Measured runoff /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 10 mm/season. Changed input. Change Treatment Measured runoff before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 mm/season. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Measured runoff before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP02-017DP02 | Conservation economics Compare conservation cost per verified treated hectare Inputs and exampleLabour cost [LKR]; Material/input cost [LKR]; Other non-overlapping cost [LKR]; Verified matching hectares [ha] Result: Cost per matching unit; Total cost (LKR/ha; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — conservation economics. Labour cost = 180,000 LKR; Material/input cost = 255,000 LKR; Other non-overlapping cost = 62,000 LKR; Verified matching hectares = 5.4 ha. Results: Cost per matching unit = 92,037.037 LKR/ha; Total cost = 497,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Labour cost = 180,001. Result: Cost per matching unit = 92,037.222 LKR/ha; Total cost = 497,001 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Labour cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COSTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-018DP02 | Soil contamination Refer suspect agricultural soil samples for investigation Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [mg/kg]; Example lower comparison bound [mg/kg]; Example upper comparison bound [mg/kg]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (mg/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — soil contamination. Parameter and applicable use = Measured soil contaminant; Measured result = 12 mg/kg; Example lower comparison bound = 0 mg/kg; Example upper comparison bound = 10 mg/kg; Original and limit unit = mg/kg; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 12 mg/kg. Changed input. Change Measured result = 12.12. Result: Measured value = 12.12 mg/kg. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-019DP02 | Technical dissemination Target conservation guidance where adoption is low Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [farms]; Distinct members of that frame covered [farms]; Frame members with unknown coverage [farms] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; farms; farms) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — technical dissemination. Required eligible frame = 100 farms; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 farms; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 farms. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 farms; Unknown coverage = 5 farms. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 farms; Unknown coverage = 5 farms. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP02-020DP02 | Model assurance Review reproducibility of soil and land assessments Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [t/ha/year]; Independently reproduced value [t/ha/year]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [t/ha/year]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (t/ha/year; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — model assurance. Earlier/source value = 100 t/ha/year; Independently reproduced value = 90 t/ha/year; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable t/ha/year measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 t/ha/year; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -10 t/ha/year; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 t/ha/year; Relative change = -10.891 %. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-001DP03 | Seed adoption Plan seed support around observed rice-category uptake Inputs and exampleDistinct eligible original plots [plots]; Sown area recorded separately [ha] Result: Plot count; Share of eligible plots; Share of recorded sown area (plots; %; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Bg 300. Distinct eligible original plots = 107 plots; Sown area recorded separately = 115 ha. Results: Plot count = 107 plots; Share of eligible plots = 18.259 %; Share of recorded sown area = 14.303 %. Changed input. Change Distinct eligible original plots = 108. Result: Plot count = 108 plots; Share of eligible plots = 18.399 %; Share of recorded sown area = 14.303 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct eligible original plots: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. total = 586; hhi = 0.173 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COMPOSITIONImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-002DP03 | Production costs Target crop production costs requiring intervention Inputs and exampleLabour cost [LKR]; Material/input cost [LKR]; Other non-overlapping cost [LKR]; Verified matching hectares [ha] Result: Cost per matching unit; Total cost (LKR/ha; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — production costs. Labour cost = 180,000 LKR; Material/input cost = 255,000 LKR; Other non-overlapping cost = 62,000 LKR; Verified matching hectares = 5.4 ha. Results: Cost per matching unit = 92,037.037 LKR/ha; Total cost = 497,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Labour cost = 180,001. Result: Cost per matching unit = 92,037.222 LKR/ha; Total cost = 497,001 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Labour cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COSTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-003DP03 | Irrigation advice Prepare crop-stage irrigation recommendations Inputs and exampleIrrigated crop area [ha]; Reference evapotranspiration [mm/day]; Crop coefficient [ratio]; Rainfall reaching the field after runoff [mm/day]; Deep percolation and paddy allowance [mm/day]; Capillary contribution [mm/day]; Desired change in stored soil water [mm/day]; Field application efficiency [fraction] Result: Gross daily irrigation requirement; Net field requirement (m³/day; mm/day) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — irrigation advice. Irrigated crop area = 85 ha; Reference evapotranspiration = 4.5 mm/day; Crop coefficient = 1.1 ratio; Rainfall reaching the field after runoff = 1.6 mm/day; Deep percolation and paddy allowance = 2 mm/day; Capillary contribution = 0 mm/day; Desired change in stored soil water = 0 mm/day; Field application efficiency = 0.68 fraction. Results: Gross daily irrigation requirement = 6,687.5 m³/day; Net field requirement = 5.35 mm/day. Changed input. Change Irrigated crop area = 85.85. Result: Gross daily irrigation requirement = 6,754.375 m³/day; Net field requirement = 5.35 mm/day. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Irrigated crop area: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The full local balance, rooting depth, stress, crop stage and operating constraints still matter. The paddy allowance is explicit and must be zero where inapplicable. This is not an authorized reservoir release. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Crop evapotranspiration ETc component Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Chapter 5, Crop coefficient approach, equation 56 Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations WATERImplementation: prototype |
| DEC-DP03-004DP03 | Planting guidance Adjust sowing guidance using observed planting progress Inputs and examplePlanned milestone/sowing date; Observed completion/sowing date Result: Calendar date difference (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — planting guidance. Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-06-01; Observed completion/sowing date = 2025-06-09. Results: Calendar date difference = 8 days. Changed input. Change Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-05-31. Result: Calendar date difference = 9 days. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned milestone/sowing date: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-005DP03 | Variety selection Compare varieties against local agronomic constraints Inputs and exampleVariety traits; Variety traits evidence reference; soil; soil evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; temperature; temperature evidence reference; pest pressure; pest pressure evidence reference; water availability; water availability evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — variety selection. Variety traits = Missing; Variety traits evidence reference = ; soil = Documented; soil evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rainfall = Documented; rainfall evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; temperature = Documented; temperature evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; pest pressure = Documented; pest pressure evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; water availability = Documented; water availability evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Variety traits = Documented; Variety traits evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Variety traits: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-006DP03 | Yield gaps Prioritize locations with low comparable crop productivity Inputs and exampleHarvested crop output [kg]; Matching harvested crop area [ha] Result: Crop yield (kg/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — yield gaps. Harvested crop output = 19,780 kg; Matching harvested crop area = 5.4 ha. Results: Crop yield = 3,662.963 kg/ha. Changed input. Change Harvested crop output = 19,781. Result: Crop yield = 3,663.148 kg/ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Harvested crop output: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-007DP03 | Pest surveillance Prioritize field investigation of unusual pest incidence Inputs and exampleComparable pest count per inspected plant [pests per inspected plant]; Observed pest count per inspected plant [pests per inspected plant] Result: Difference; Relative change (pests per inspected plant; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — pest surveillance. Comparable pest count per inspected plant = 2 pests per inspected plant; Observed pest count per inspected plant = 3.2 pests per inspected plant. Results: Difference = 1.2 pests per inspected plant; Relative change = 60 %. Changed input. Change Comparable pest count per inspected plant = 2.02. Result: Difference = 1.18 pests per inspected plant; Relative change = 58.416 %. Refer the matched field counts for pest investigation. Missing input. Omit Comparable pest count per inspected plant: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ANOMALYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-008DP03 | Disease management Refer crop disease cases for diagnosis and control advice Inputs and exampleSymptoms; Symptoms evidence reference; laboratory result; laboratory result evidence reference; crop; crop evidence reference; spread observations; spread observations evidence reference; current control guidance; current control guidance evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — disease management. Symptoms = Missing; Symptoms evidence reference = ; laboratory result = Documented; laboratory result evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; crop = Documented; crop evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; spread observations = Documented; spread observations evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current control guidance = Documented; current control guidance evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Symptoms = Documented; Symptoms evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Symptoms: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-009DP03 | Seed certification Prioritize seed lots awaiting required tests Inputs and exampleLot ID; Lot ID evidence reference; germination test; germination test evidence reference; purity test; purity test evidence reference; health test; health test evidence reference; current certification criteria; current certification criteria evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — seed certification. Lot ID = Missing; Lot ID evidence reference = ; germination test = Documented; germination test evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; purity test = Documented; purity test evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; health test = Documented; health test evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current certification criteria = Documented; current certification criteria evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Lot ID = Documented; Lot ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Lot ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-010DP03 | Seed supply Plan seed procurement against seasonal demand Inputs and examplePhysical stock [kg seed]; Quarantined stock [kg seed]; Expired stock [kg seed]; Committed usable stock [kg seed]; Additional demand [kg seed]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days] Result: Uncommitted usable stock; Additional demand gap (kg seed; kg seed) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — seed supply. Physical stock = 1,200 kg seed; Quarantined stock = 100 kg seed; Expired stock = 50 kg seed; Committed usable stock = 740 kg seed; Additional demand = 500 kg seed; Supplier lead time = 14 days; Remaining shelf life of usable stock = 30 days. Results: Uncommitted usable stock = 310 kg seed; Additional demand gap = 190 kg seed. Changed input. Change Physical stock = 1,201. Result: Uncommitted usable stock = 311 kg seed; Additional demand gap = 189 kg seed. Review replenishment gap. Missing input. Omit Physical stock: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INVENTORYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-011DP03 | Fertilizer advice Refer soil-test-based nutrient requirements for review Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [mg/kg]; Example lower comparison bound [mg/kg]; Example upper comparison bound [mg/kg]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (mg/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — fertilizer advice. Parameter and applicable use = Available phosphorus by stated method; Measured result = 12 mg/kg; Example lower comparison bound = 15 mg/kg; Example upper comparison bound = 30 mg/kg; Original and limit unit = mg/kg; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 12 mg/kg. Changed input. Change Measured result = 12.12. Result: Measured value = 12.12 mg/kg. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-012DP03 | Pesticide stewardship Review proposed pesticide use against current conditions Inputs and exampleProduct registration; Product registration evidence reference; crop; crop evidence reference; pest; pest evidence reference; label version; label version evidence reference; application record; application record evidence reference; restrictions; restrictions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — pesticide stewardship. Product registration = Missing; Product registration evidence reference = ; crop = Documented; crop evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; pest = Documented; pest evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; label version = Documented; label version evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; application record = Documented; application record evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; restrictions = Documented; restrictions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Product registration = Documented; Product registration evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Product registration: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, DD-PESTICIDES, S03, S11, S50 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP03-013DP03 | Extension delivery Target extension services to unmet farmer needs Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [farmers]; Distinct members of that frame covered [farmers]; Frame members with unknown coverage [farmers] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; farmers; farmers) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — extension delivery. Required eligible frame = 100 farmers; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 farmers; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 farmers. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 farmers; Unknown coverage = 5 farmers. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 farmers; Unknown coverage = 5 farmers. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-014DP03 | Post-harvest loss Select crop stages needing loss-reduction measures Inputs and exampleBatch input on stated moisture basis [kg]; Saleable output [kg]; Usable by-product [kg]; Closing stock [kg]; Documented transfers out [kg] Result: Unaccounted physical share; Unaccounted mass (%; kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — post-harvest loss. Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,200 kg; Saleable output = 970 kg; Usable by-product = 85 kg; Closing stock = 45 kg; Documented transfers out = 20 kg. Results: Unaccounted physical share = 6.667 %; Unaccounted mass = 80 kg. Changed input. Change Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,201. Result: Unaccounted physical share = 6.744 %; Unaccounted mass = 81 kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Batch input on stated moisture basis: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use a consistent moisture basis and process boundary. Unaccounted mass is not automatically avoidable food loss or spoilage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required LOSSImplementation: prototype Method source: S57 |
| DEC-DP03-015DP03 | Mechanization Compare machinery service options for crop operations Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Hire a local tractor service. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional hire a local tractor service option: compare the documented Operation hours, cultivated hectares.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-016DP03 | Crop diversification Compare crop enterprises under resource constraints Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Seasonal paddy enterprise. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional seasonal paddy enterprise option: compare the documented Crop alternatives, gross margins.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-017DP03 | Farm income Identify crop enterprises with weak gross margins Inputs and exampleSaleable output [kg]; Realized price [LKR/kg]; Variable costs [LKR]; Matching crop area [ha]; Crop and saleable-output basis Result: Enterprise gross margin; Gross margin per hectare; Variable-cost break-even price (LKR; LKR/ha; LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — farm income. Saleable output = 4,500 kg; Realized price = 110 LKR/kg; Variable costs = 360,000 LKR; Matching crop area = 1 ha; Crop and saleable-output basis = Paddy rough rice / fictional one-hectare crop enterprise / same season. Results: Enterprise gross margin = 135,000 LKR; Gross margin per hectare = 135,000 LKR/ha; Variable-cost break-even price = 80 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Saleable output = 4,501. Result: Enterprise gross margin = 135,110 LKR; Gross margin per hectare = 135,110 LKR/ha; Variable-cost break-even price = 79.982 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Saleable output: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep fixed costs, family-labour opportunity cost, taxes and financing identifiable. Gross margin is not net profit. Crop, prices and costs are fictional coherent enterprise assumptions. Gross margin excludes fixed and financing costs; it is not household income or net profit. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Enterprise gross margin Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Chapter 4, Gross margin and section 4.7.1 Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations MARGINImplementation: prototype Method source: S76 |
| DEC-DP03-018DP03 | Weather losses Assess yield change following documented weather events Inputs and exampleTreatment Crop productivity before [kg/ha]; Treatment Crop productivity after [kg/ha]; Comparison Crop productivity before [kg/ha]; Comparison Crop productivity after [kg/ha]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (kg/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — weather losses. Treatment Crop productivity before = 42 kg/ha; Treatment Crop productivity after = 59 kg/ha; Comparison Crop productivity before = 39 kg/ha; Comparison Crop productivity after = 46 kg/ha; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Crop productivity /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 10 kg/ha. Changed input. Change Treatment Crop productivity before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 kg/ha. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Crop productivity before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP03-019DP03 | Advisory effectiveness Follow up farmers who received technical guidance Inputs and exampleDistinct farmers receiving the stated guidance [cases]; Those farmers reached at follow-up [cases]; Those farmers with the stated verified follow-up outcome [cases]; Farmers with unknown follow-up [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — advisory effectiveness. Distinct farmers receiving the stated guidance = 180 cases; Those farmers reached at follow-up = 132 cases; Those farmers with the stated verified follow-up outcome = 96 cases; Farmers with unknown follow-up = 12 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct farmers receiving the stated guidance = 181. Result: Verified completion share = 53.039 %; Not verified complete = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct farmers receiving the stated guidance: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The follow-up outcome and observation window must be recorded; receipt of advice is not adoption. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP03-020DP03 | Research trials Select crop technologies for further validation Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [kg/ha]; Independently reproduced value [kg/ha]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [kg/ha]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (kg/ha; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — research trials. Earlier/source value = 100 kg/ha; Independently reproduced value = 90 kg/ha; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable kg/ha measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 kg/ha; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -10 kg/ha; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 kg/ha; Relative change = -10.891 %. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Crop specialist, extension officer and agricultural statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-001DP04 | Paddy utilization Target support to registered land not cultivated this season Inputs and exampleRegistered cultivable hectares in the seasonal frame [ha]; Hectares verified cultivated this season [ha]; Hectares with unknown seasonal cultivation status [ha] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; ha; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — paddy utilization. Registered cultivable hectares in the seasonal frame = 100 ha; Hectares verified cultivated this season = 65 ha; Hectares with unknown seasonal cultivation status = 5 ha. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 ha; Unknown coverage = 5 ha. Changed input. Change Registered cultivable hectares in the seasonal frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 ha; Unknown coverage = 5 ha. Investigate the known uncultivated area and its recorded reasons. Missing input. Omit Registered cultivable hectares in the seasonal frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-002DP04 | Support overlap Review repeated farmer assistance before new allocation Inputs and examplePermitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit Result: Overlapping days (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — support overlap. Permitted recipient/service reference = Laggala Pallegama — support overlap; 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. Results: Overlapping days = 61 days. Changed input. Change Other support period begins = 2025-01-01; Other support period ends = 2025-06-30. Result: Overlapping days = 181 days. Review possible overlap. Missing input. Omit Permitted recipient/service reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPEATImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-003DP04 | Minor irrigation Prioritize service areas with unmet crop water needs Inputs and exampleRecorded crop-water requirement for this period [m³]; Recorded water supplied in the same period [m³] Result: Difference; Relative change (m³; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — minor irrigation. Recorded crop-water requirement for this period = 85,000 m³; Recorded water supplied in the same period = 64,000 m³. Results: Difference = -21,000 m³; Relative change = -24.706 %. Changed input. Change Recorded crop-water requirement for this period = 85,001. Result: Difference = -21,001 m³; Relative change = -24.707 %. Review the delivery shortfall and allocation constraints. Missing input. Omit Recorded crop-water requirement for this period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-004DP04 | Agrarian services Clear delayed farmer-service requests Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — agrarian services. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-005DP04 | Paddy register Resolve conflicting parcel and cultivator records Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — paddy register. Original source value/definition = Parcel ID: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Parcel ID: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-006DP04 | Cultivation disputes Refer unresolved cultivation-right disputes Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — cultivation disputes. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-007DP04 | Land conversion Screen paddy conversion requests for formal determination Inputs and exampleParcel status; Parcel status evidence reference; proposed use; proposed use evidence reference; application evidence; application evidence evidence reference; current rules; current rules evidence reference; inspection findings; inspection findings evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land conversion. Parcel status = Missing; Parcel status evidence reference = ; proposed use = Documented; proposed use evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; application evidence = Documented; application evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current rules = Documented; current rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection findings = Documented; inspection findings evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Parcel status = Documented; Parcel status evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Parcel status: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S04, S55 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP04-008DP04 | Tank rehabilitation Compare minor-tank rehabilitation alternatives Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Repair the sluice and leaks. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional repair the sluice and leaks option: compare the documented Tank condition, command hectares.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-009DP04 | Farmer organizations Review organization registration and governance compliance Inputs and exampleOrganization ID; Organization ID evidence reference; registration; registration evidence reference; membership; membership evidence reference; meeting records; meeting records evidence reference; audit findings; audit findings evidence reference; current criteria; current criteria evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — farmer organizations. Organization ID = Missing; Organization ID evidence reference = ; registration = Documented; registration evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; membership = Documented; membership evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; meeting records = Documented; meeting records evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; audit findings = Documented; audit findings evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current criteria = Documented; current criteria evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Organization ID = Documented; Organization ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Organization ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-010DP04 | Organization finance Follow up unreconciled farmer-organization funds Inputs and exampleOpening cash/receivable balance [LKR]; Receipts and documented additions [LKR]; Payments and documented reductions [LKR]; Other documented non-overlapping adjustments [LKR]; Independently recorded closing balance [LKR] Result: Calculated closing balance; Recorded minus calculated closing (LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — organization finance. Opening cash/receivable balance = 160,000 LKR; Receipts and documented additions = 48,000 LKR; Payments and documented reductions = 35,000 LKR; Other documented non-overlapping adjustments = 9,000 LKR; Independently recorded closing balance = 163,500 LKR. Results: Calculated closing balance = 164,000 LKR; Recorded minus calculated closing = -500 LKR. Changed input. Change Opening cash/receivable balance = 160,001. Result: Calculated closing balance = 164,001 LKR; Recorded minus calculated closing = -501 LKR. Reconcile closing balance. Missing input. Omit Opening cash/receivable balance: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use the same physical boundary, period and units. A residual is a reconciliation issue, not automatically a measured loss. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-011DP04 | Crop damage Prioritize verification of reported crop damage Inputs and exampleClaim ID; Claim ID evidence reference; affected hectares; affected hectares evidence reference; crop stage; crop stage evidence reference; event date; event date evidence reference; inspection evidence; inspection evidence evidence reference; parcel ID; parcel ID evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — crop damage. Claim ID = Missing; Claim ID evidence reference = ; affected hectares = Documented; affected hectares evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; crop stage = Documented; crop stage evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; event date = Documented; event date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection evidence = Documented; inspection evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; parcel ID = Documented; parcel ID evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Claim ID = Documented; Claim ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Claim ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-012DP04 | Subsidy administration Refer complete subsidy applications for approval Inputs and exampleApplicant ID; Applicant ID evidence reference; scheme version; scheme version evidence reference; parcel evidence; parcel evidence evidence reference; eligibility documents; eligibility documents evidence reference; prior assistance; prior assistance evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — subsidy administration. Applicant ID = Missing; Applicant ID evidence reference = ; scheme version = Documented; scheme version evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; parcel evidence = Documented; parcel evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; eligibility documents = Documented; eligibility documents evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; prior assistance = Documented; prior assistance evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Applicant ID = Documented; Applicant ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Applicant ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S04, S55 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP04-013DP04 | Input distribution Plan timely distribution of approved farm inputs Inputs and examplePhysical stock [kg input]; Quarantined stock [kg input]; Expired stock [kg input]; Committed usable stock [kg input]; Additional demand [kg input]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days] Result: Uncommitted usable stock; Additional demand gap (kg input; kg input) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — input distribution. Physical stock = 1,200 kg input; Quarantined stock = 100 kg input; Expired stock = 50 kg input; Committed usable stock = 740 kg input; Additional demand = 500 kg input; Supplier lead time = 14 days; Remaining shelf life of usable stock = 30 days. Results: Uncommitted usable stock = 310 kg input; Additional demand gap = 190 kg input. Changed input. Change Physical stock = 1,201. Result: Uncommitted usable stock = 311 kg input; Additional demand gap = 189 kg input. Review replenishment gap. Missing input. Omit Physical stock: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INVENTORYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-014DP04 | Service centres Allocate staff to agrarian centres with workload gaps Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [staff hours]; Rated capacity for that period [staff hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [staff hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (staff hours; staff hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service centres. Demand in the selected period = 150 staff hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 staff hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 staff hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-015DP04 | Canal maintenance Schedule communal minor-irrigation maintenance Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — canal maintenance. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-016DP04 | Farmer participation Improve representation in cultivation meetings Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [cultivators]; Distinct members of that frame covered [cultivators]; Frame members with unknown coverage [cultivators] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; cultivators; cultivators) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — farmer participation. Required eligible frame = 100 cultivators; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 cultivators; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 cultivators. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 cultivators; Unknown coverage = 5 cultivators. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 cultivators; Unknown coverage = 5 cultivators. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-017DP04 | Tank reservations Refer encroachment concerns for field and legal review Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — tank reservations. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-018DP04 | Irrigation equity Review head-end and tail-end water-delivery differences Inputs and exampleHead-end delivered volume for a matching eligible area [m³]; Tail-end delivered volume on the same area and period basis [m³] Result: Difference; Relative change (m³; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — irrigation equity. Head-end delivered volume for a matching eligible area = 24,000 m³; Tail-end delivered volume on the same area and period basis = 18,000 m³. Results: Difference = -6,000 m³; Relative change = -25 %. Changed input. Change Head-end delivered volume for a matching eligible area = 24,001. Result: Difference = -6,001 m³; Relative change = -25.003 %. Investigate the comparable head-end and tail-end delivery difference. Missing input. Omit Head-end delivered volume for a matching eligible area: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Compare equivalent command areas, delivery windows and measurement methods. This is not a planned-versus-actual comparison. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-019DP04 | Registry updates Schedule outdated farmer and land record checks Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — registry updates. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP04-020DP04 | Service outcomes Evaluate whether agrarian support improved cultivation Inputs and exampleTreatment Verified cultivated share before [%]; Treatment Verified cultivated share after [%]; Comparison Verified cultivated share before [%]; Comparison Verified cultivated share after [%]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (%) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service outcomes. Treatment Verified cultivated share before = 42 %; Treatment Verified cultivated share after = 59 %; Comparison Verified cultivated share before = 39 %; Comparison Verified cultivated share after = 46 %; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Verified cultivated share /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 10 %. Changed input. Change Treatment Verified cultivated share before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 %. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Verified cultivated share before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP05-001DP05 | Command water demand Prepare additional irrigation allocation proposals Inputs and exampleIrrigated crop area [ha]; Reference evapotranspiration [mm/day]; Crop coefficient [ratio]; Rainfall reaching the field after runoff [mm/day]; Deep percolation and paddy allowance [mm/day]; Capillary contribution [mm/day]; Desired change in stored soil water [mm/day]; Field application efficiency [fraction] Result: Gross daily irrigation requirement; Net field requirement (m³/day; mm/day) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — command water demand. Irrigated crop area = 85 ha; Reference evapotranspiration = 4.5 mm/day; Crop coefficient = 1.1 ratio; Rainfall reaching the field after runoff = 1.6 mm/day; Deep percolation and paddy allowance = 2 mm/day; Capillary contribution = 0 mm/day; Desired change in stored soil water = 0 mm/day; Field application efficiency = 0.68 fraction. Results: Gross daily irrigation requirement = 6,687.5 m³/day; Net field requirement = 5.35 mm/day. Changed input. Change Irrigated crop area = 85.85. Result: Gross daily irrigation requirement = 6,754.375 m³/day; Net field requirement = 5.35 mm/day. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Irrigated crop area: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The full local balance, rooting depth, stress, crop stage and operating constraints still matter. The paddy allowance is explicit and must be zero where inapplicable. This is not an authorized reservoir release. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Crop evapotranspiration ETc component Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Chapter 5, Crop coefficient approach, equation 56 Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations WATERImplementation: prototype |
| DEC-DP05-002DP05 | Gauge operations Restore stale river and reservoir observations Inputs and exampleExpected observations in the window [observations]; Distinct valid observations [observations]; Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval [days] Result: Completeness; Age of latest observation; Missing observations (%; days; observations) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — gauge operations. Expected observations in the window = 30 observations; Distinct valid observations = 24 observations; Latest valid observation = 2025-06-28; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Required observation interval = 1 days. Results: Completeness = 80 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 6 observations. Changed input. Change Expected observations in the window = 31. Result: Completeness = 77.419 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 7 observations. Check overdue observation. Missing input. Omit Expected observations in the window: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FRESHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-003DP05 | Canal performance Prioritize canals with delivery shortfalls Inputs and examplePlanned canal delivery for the period [m³]; Measured canal delivery for the same period [m³] Result: Difference; Relative change (m³; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — canal performance. Planned canal delivery for the period = 85,000 m³; Measured canal delivery for the same period = 68,000 m³. Results: Difference = -17,000 m³; Relative change = -20 %. Changed input. Change Planned canal delivery for the period = 85,001. Result: Difference = -17,001 m³; Relative change = -20.001 %. Review the delivery gap with the scheme operator. Missing input. Omit Planned canal delivery for the period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-004DP05 | Reservoir operation Review storage consequences of proposed releases Inputs and exampleOpening storage [m³]; All measured inflows and transfers in [m³]; Releases and transfers out [m³]; Evaporation and other outflows [m³]; Independently observed closing storage [m³] Result: Calculated closing storage; Observed minus calculated closing (m³; m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — reservoir operation. Opening storage = 160,000 m³; All measured inflows and transfers in = 48,000 m³; Releases and transfers out = 35,000 m³; Evaporation and other outflows = 9,000 m³; Independently observed closing storage = 163,500 m³. Results: Calculated closing storage = 164,000 m³; Observed minus calculated closing = -500 m³. Changed input. Change Opening storage = 160,001. Result: Calculated closing storage = 164,001 m³; Observed minus calculated closing = -501 m³. Reconcile closing balance. Missing input. Omit Opening storage: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use the same physical boundary, period and units. A residual is a reconciliation issue, not automatically a measured loss. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-005DP05 | Dam safety Escalate dam inspection defects requiring engineering action Inputs and exampleDam ID; Dam ID evidence reference; seepage; seepage evidence reference; deformation; deformation evidence reference; inspection findings; inspection findings evidence reference; approved limits; approved limits evidence reference; responsible engineer; responsible engineer evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — dam safety. Dam ID = Missing; Dam ID evidence reference = ; seepage = Documented; seepage evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; deformation = Documented; deformation evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection findings = Documented; inspection findings evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approved limits = Documented; approved limits evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; responsible engineer = Documented; responsible engineer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Dam ID = Documented; Dam ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Dam ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-006DP05 | Flood readiness Prepare response options from authorized hydrological evidence Inputs and exampleRiver levels; River levels evidence reference; official forecast; official forecast evidence reference; flood exposure; flood exposure evidence reference; warning protocol; warning protocol evidence reference; evacuation constraints; evacuation constraints evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — flood readiness. River levels = Missing; River levels evidence reference = ; official forecast = Documented; official forecast evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; flood exposure = Documented; flood exposure evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; warning protocol = Documented; warning protocol evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; evacuation constraints = Documented; evacuation constraints evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change River levels = Documented; River levels evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit River levels: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-007DP05 | Drought allocation Compare feasible drought water-allocation alternatives Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Prioritize domestic supply and minimum flows. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional prioritize domestic supply and minimum flows option: compare the documented Dependable storage, sector demand.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-008DP05 | Reservoir sedimentation Prioritize bathymetric surveys and desilting appraisal Inputs and exampleEarlier surveyed capacity on the same datum [m³]; Later surveyed capacity on the same datum [m³] Result: Difference; Relative change (m³; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — reservoir sedimentation. Earlier surveyed capacity on the same datum = 900,000 m³; Later surveyed capacity on the same datum = 860,000 m³. Results: Difference = -40,000 m³; Relative change = -4.444 %. Changed input. Change Earlier surveyed capacity on the same datum = 900,001. Result: Difference = -40,001 m³; Relative change = -4.445 %. Check the surveys before commissioning bathymetry or desilting appraisal. Missing input. Omit Earlier surveyed capacity on the same datum: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A capacity difference alone does not prove sedimentation. Survey coverage, datum and uncertainty must match. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CHANGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-009DP05 | Canal rehabilitation Prioritize repair packages within engineering and budget limits Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — canal rehabilitation. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-010DP05 | Drainage Select drainage improvements for persistently waterlogged areas Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Clear existing drainage obstructions. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional clear existing drainage obstructions option: compare the documented Flood duration, drainage network.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-011DP05 | Salinity exclusion Investigate saline intrusion affecting irrigated land Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [µS/cm]; Example lower comparison bound [µS/cm]; Example upper comparison bound [µS/cm]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (µS/cm) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — salinity exclusion. Parameter and applicable use = Irrigation-water electrical conductivity; Measured result = 2,500 µS/cm; Example lower comparison bound = 0 µS/cm; Example upper comparison bound = 2,000 µS/cm; Original and limit unit = µS/cm; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 2,500 µS/cm. Changed input. Change Measured result = 2,501. Result: Measured value = 2,501 µS/cm. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-012DP05 | Gate scheduling Schedule approved gate operations without conflicts Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — gate scheduling. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-013DP05 | Water productivity Target schemes with low crop output per water delivered Inputs and exampleSaleable crop output [kg]; Matching irrigation water input [m³] Result: Crop water productivity (kg/m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — water productivity. Saleable crop output = 19,780 kg; Matching irrigation water input = 7,200 m³. Results: Crop water productivity = 2.747 kg/m³. Changed input. Change Saleable crop output = 19,781. Result: Crop water productivity = 2.747 kg/m³. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Saleable crop output: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-014DP05 | Environmental flows Flag proposed releases inconsistent with reviewed flow conditions Inputs and exampleSupplied reviewed minimum-flow condition [m³/s]; Proposed flow on the same time and location basis [m³/s] Result: Difference; Relative change (m³/s; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — environmental flows. Supplied reviewed minimum-flow condition = 1.2 m³/s; Proposed flow on the same time and location basis = 0.9 m³/s. Results: Difference = -0.3 m³/s; Relative change = -25 %. Changed input. Change Supplied reviewed minimum-flow condition = 1.212. Result: Difference = -0.312 m³/s; Relative change = -25.743 %. Refer the proposed flow and stated condition to the responsible engineer. Missing input. Omit Supplied reviewed minimum-flow condition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits The reference is a fictional supplied condition, not an official environmental-flow standard. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-015DP05 | Hydrological models Require reproducible calibration before model use Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [m³/s]; Independently reproduced value [m³/s]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [m³/s]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (m³/s; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — hydrological models. Earlier/source value = 100 m³/s; Independently reproduced value = 90 m³/s; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable m³/s measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 m³/s; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -10 m³/s; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 m³/s; Relative change = -10.891 %. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-016DP05 | Pumping systems Compare energy performance of lift-irrigation stations Inputs and exampleElectric energy consumed [kWh]; Water pumped [m³] Result: Specific energy use (kWh/m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — pumping systems. Electric energy consumed = 3,128 kWh; Water pumped = 18,000 m³. Results: Specific energy use = 0.174 kWh/m³. Changed input. Change Electric energy consumed = 3,129. Result: Specific energy use = 0.174 kWh/m³. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Electric energy consumed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-017DP05 | Rehabilitation investment Appraise reservoir rehabilitation cash-flow alternatives Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP05-018DP05 | Construction delivery Investigate delayed irrigation construction milestones Inputs and examplePlanned milestone/sowing date; Observed completion/sowing date Result: Calendar date difference (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — construction delivery. Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-06-01; Observed completion/sowing date = 2025-06-09. Results: Calendar date difference = 8 days. Changed input. Change Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-05-31. Result: Calendar date difference = 9 days. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned milestone/sowing date: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-019DP05 | Spare parts Prevent shortages of critical irrigation equipment spares Inputs and examplePhysical stock [spares]; Quarantined stock [spares]; Expired stock [spares]; Committed usable stock [spares]; Additional demand [spares]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days] Result: Uncommitted usable stock; Additional demand gap (spares; spares) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — spare parts. Physical stock = 1,200 spares; Quarantined stock = 100 spares; Expired stock = 50 spares; Committed usable stock = 740 spares; Additional demand = 500 spares; Supplier lead time = 14 days; Remaining shelf life of usable stock = 30 days. Results: Uncommitted usable stock = 310 spares; Additional demand gap = 190 spares. Changed input. Change Physical stock = 1,201. Result: Uncommitted usable stock = 311 spares; Additional demand gap = 189 spares. Review replenishment gap. Missing input. Omit Physical stock: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INVENTORYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP05-020DP05 | Public information Correct missing metadata in published reservoir information Inputs and exampleReservoir ID; Reservoir ID evidence reference; reading time; reading time evidence reference; unit; unit evidence reference; datum; datum evidence reference; source; source evidence reference; review state; review state evidence reference; update schedule; update schedule evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — public information. Reservoir ID = Missing; Reservoir ID evidence reference = ; reading time = Documented; reading time evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; unit = Documented; unit evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; datum = Documented; datum evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source = Documented; source evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; review state = Documented; review state evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; update schedule = Documented; update schedule evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Reservoir ID = Documented; Reservoir ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Reservoir ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Irrigation operations engineer and hydrologist; dam safety specialist for structural decisions | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-001DP06 | Seasonal cropping Review cropping plans against calculated water requirements Inputs and exampleIrrigated crop area [ha]; Reference evapotranspiration [mm/day]; Crop coefficient [ratio]; Rainfall reaching the field after runoff [mm/day]; Deep percolation and paddy allowance [mm/day]; Capillary contribution [mm/day]; Desired change in stored soil water [mm/day]; Field application efficiency [fraction] Result: Gross daily irrigation requirement; Net field requirement (m³/day; mm/day) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — seasonal cropping. Irrigated crop area = 85 ha; Reference evapotranspiration = 4.5 mm/day; Crop coefficient = 1.1 ratio; Rainfall reaching the field after runoff = 1.6 mm/day; Deep percolation and paddy allowance = 2 mm/day; Capillary contribution = 0 mm/day; Desired change in stored soil water = 0 mm/day; Field application efficiency = 0.68 fraction. Results: Gross daily irrigation requirement = 6,687.5 m³/day; Net field requirement = 5.35 mm/day. Changed input. Change Irrigated crop area = 85.85. Result: Gross daily irrigation requirement = 6,754.375 m³/day; Net field requirement = 5.35 mm/day. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Irrigated crop area: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The full local balance, rooting depth, stress, crop stage and operating constraints still matter. The paddy allowance is explicit and must be zero where inapplicable. This is not an authorized reservoir release. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Crop evapotranspiration ETc component Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Chapter 5, Crop coefficient approach, equation 56 Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations WATERImplementation: prototype |
| DEC-DP06-002DP06 | Water delivery Correct system-level water-delivery shortfalls Inputs and examplePlanned system delivery in the stated period [m³]; Measured system delivery in the same period [m³] Result: Difference; Relative change (m³; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — water delivery. Planned system delivery in the stated period = 85,000 m³; Measured system delivery in the same period = 69,000 m³. Results: Difference = -16,000 m³; Relative change = -18.824 %. Changed input. Change Planned system delivery in the stated period = 85,001. Result: Difference = -16,001 m³; Relative change = -18.824 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned system delivery in the stated period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-003DP06 | Reservoir networks Review linked-reservoir storage and transfer scenarios Inputs and exampleOpening storage [m³]; All measured inflows and transfers in [m³]; Releases and transfers out [m³]; Evaporation and other outflows [m³]; Independently observed closing storage [m³] Result: Calculated closing storage; Observed minus calculated closing (m³; m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — reservoir networks. Opening storage = 160,000 m³; All measured inflows and transfers in = 48,000 m³; Releases and transfers out = 35,000 m³; Evaporation and other outflows = 9,000 m³; Independently observed closing storage = 163,500 m³. Results: Calculated closing storage = 164,000 m³; Observed minus calculated closing = -500 m³. Changed input. Change Opening storage = 160,001. Result: Calculated closing storage = 164,001 m³; Observed minus calculated closing = -501 m³. Reconcile closing balance. Missing input. Omit Opening storage: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use the same physical boundary, period and units. A residual is a reconciliation issue, not automatically a measured loss. For a combined reservoir boundary, eliminate transfers wholly inside that boundary. The example is a single stated control volume, not the total Mahaweli system. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-004DP06 | Planning evidence Restore stale data feeds used in seasonal planning Inputs and exampleExpected observations in the window [observations]; Distinct valid observations [observations]; Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval [days] Result: Completeness; Age of latest observation; Missing observations (%; days; observations) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — planning evidence. Expected observations in the window = 30 observations; Distinct valid observations = 24 observations; Latest valid observation = 2025-06-28; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Required observation interval = 1 days. Results: Completeness = 80 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 6 observations. Changed input. Change Expected observations in the window = 31. Result: Completeness = 77.419 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 7 observations. Check overdue observation. Missing input. Omit Expected observations in the window: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FRESHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-005DP06 | Multi-sector allocation Compare agriculture energy and domestic-water allocations Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Domestic supply and essential crop allocation. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional domestic supply and essential crop allocation option: compare the documented Sector demand, storage.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-006DP06 | Drought response Prioritize demand-management options during shortages Inputs and exampleSystem shortages; System shortages evidence reference; crop stages; crop stages evidence reference; essential demand; essential demand evidence reference; feasible options; feasible options evidence reference; impacts; impacts evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — drought response. System shortages = Missing; System shortages evidence reference = ; crop stages = Documented; crop stages evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; essential demand = Documented; essential demand evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; feasible options = Documented; feasible options evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; impacts = Documented; impacts evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change System shortages = Documented; System shortages evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit System shortages: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-007DP06 | Land allocation Refer agricultural and commercial land requests for approval Inputs and exampleParcel ID; Parcel ID evidence reference; applicant evidence; applicant evidence evidence reference; permitted purpose; permitted purpose evidence reference; plan edition; plan edition evidence reference; current rules; current rules evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land allocation. Parcel ID = Missing; Parcel ID evidence reference = ; applicant evidence = Documented; applicant evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; permitted purpose = Documented; permitted purpose evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; plan edition = Documented; plan edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current rules = Documented; current rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Parcel ID = Documented; Parcel ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Parcel ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S07, S08, S50 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP06-008DP06 | Land conversion Does this proposed use fit the system plan? Inputs and exampleCase and version; Place and responsible system office; Boundary and source edition; Matching survey and area definitions available in this example; Proposed land use; Applicable plan and version; Applicable plan and rules available in this example; Total proposal area [ha]; Area matching the stated plan use [ha]; Area with conditions to review [ha]; Area with a reported plan conflict [ha]; Area without a confirmed plan match [ha]; Conditions and rule reference; Affected tenure and rights evidence Result: Reported plan-conflict area; Share with a reported plan conflict; Area with conditions to review; Area without a confirmed plan match (ha; %; ha; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Agricultural storage proposal — fictional case. Case and version = Proposal 1 / 2025 — fictional; Place and responsible system office = Laggala Pallegama geographic context; applicable Mahaweli system jurisdiction must be established; Boundary and source edition = Fictional survey record / edition 1; Matching survey and area definitions available in this example = Provided; Proposed land use = Agricultural storage and access — fictional proposal; Applicable plan and version = Fictional system plan / edition 1; Applicable plan and rules available in this example = Provided; Total proposal area = 10 ha; Area matching the stated plan use = 4 ha; Area with conditions to review = 3 ha; Area with a reported plan conflict = 2 ha; Area without a confirmed plan match = 1 ha; Conditions and rule reference = Fictional conditions: check access and drainage; no official threshold is supplied; Affected tenure and rights evidence = Missing. Results: Reported plan-conflict area = 2 ha; Share with a reported plan conflict = 20 %; Area with conditions to review = 3 ha; Area without a confirmed plan match = 1 ha. Changed input. Change Area matching the stated plan use = 3; Area with a reported plan conflict = 3. Result: Reported plan-conflict area = 3 ha; Share with a reported plan conflict = 30 %; Area with conditions to review = 3 ha; Area without a confirmed plan match = 1 ha. Resolve the unmatched plan areas before a recommendation. Missing input. Omit Case and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits A percentage cannot establish plan compatibility or permission. Unresolved plan matches and conditions remain visible. The reference image is geographic context, not the source of these areas. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-009DP06 | Reservation protection Does this activity overlap a reservoir or canal reservation? Inputs and exampleCase and version; Place and responsible system office; Boundary and source edition; Matching survey and area definitions available in this example; Reservoir or canal and case reference; Activity observed; Inspection date; Reservation survey and basis available in this example; Total observed activity area [ha]; Reported activity area inside the reservation [ha]; Matching permission record; Permission reference or reason it is unknown; Maintenance access reported obstructed Result: Reported overlap inside the reservation; Share of observed activity inside the reservation (ha; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Material-storage inspection — fictional case. Case and version = Inspection 1 / 2025 — fictional; Place and responsible system office = Laggala Pallegama geographic context; applicable Mahaweli system jurisdiction must be established; Boundary and source edition = Fictional survey record / edition 1; Matching survey and area definitions available in this example = Provided; Reservoir or canal and case reference = Reservoir-side activity — fictional Matale inspection case; Activity observed = Temporary material storage — fictional observation; Inspection date = 2025-06-12; Reservation survey and basis available in this example = Provided; Total observed activity area = 0.6 ha; Reported activity area inside the reservation = 0.15 ha; Matching permission record = Missing; Permission reference or reason it is unknown = No matching permission has been supplied in this fictional case; Maintenance access reported obstructed = Unknown. Results: Reported overlap inside the reservation = 0.15 ha; Share of observed activity inside the reservation = 25 %. Changed input. Change Reported activity area inside the reservation = 0.18. Result: Reported overlap inside the reservation = 0.18 ha; Share of observed activity inside the reservation = 30 %. Check permission and arrange a site review. Missing input. Omit Case and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits A reported overlap is not a finding of unlawful occupation. Confirm the applicable survey, reservation basis, permissions and inspection evidence. No fixed reservation width, eviction, penalty or safety determination is inferred. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-010DP06 | Farmer livelihoods Target livelihood support to uncovered eligible settlers Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — farmer livelihoods. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-011DP06 | System productivity Identify systems with low agricultural water productivity Inputs and exampleSaleable crop output [kg]; Matching irrigation water input [m³] Result: Crop water productivity (kg/m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — system productivity. Saleable crop output = 19,780 kg; Matching irrigation water input = 7,200 m³. Results: Crop water productivity = 2.747 kg/m³. Changed input. Change Saleable crop output = 19,781. Result: Crop water productivity = 2.747 kg/m³. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Saleable crop output: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-012DP06 | Crop diversification Compare alternative cropping patterns for system plans Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Paddy-dominant seasonal plan. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional paddy-dominant seasonal plan option: compare the documented Crop margins, seasonal water.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-013DP06 | Irrigation assets Prioritize Mahaweli infrastructure maintenance Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — irrigation assets. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-014DP06 | Settlement services Plan service capacity for settlement growth Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [m³/day]; Rated capacity for that period [m³/day]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [m³/day] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (m³/day; m³/day) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — settlement services. Demand in the selected period = 150 m³/day; Rated capacity for that period = 180 m³/day; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 m³/day. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 m³/day; Usable capacity = 135 m³/day. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 m³/day; Usable capacity = 135 m³/day. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-015DP06 | Environmental restoration Select riparian and catchment restoration alternatives Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Riparian natural regeneration. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional riparian natural regeneration option: compare the documented Site condition, land rights.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-016DP06 | Aquaculture coordination Review reservoir-use conflicts involving fisheries Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — aquaculture coordination. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-017DP06 | Flood operations Prepare coordinated operating options during high inflows Inputs and exampleOfficial forecasts; Official forecasts evidence reference; reservoir levels; reservoir levels evidence reference; downstream exposure; downstream exposure evidence reference; approved operating rules; approved operating rules evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — flood operations. Official forecasts = Missing; Official forecasts evidence reference = ; reservoir levels = Documented; reservoir levels evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; downstream exposure = Documented; downstream exposure evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approved operating rules = Documented; approved operating rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Official forecasts = Documented; Official forecasts evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Official forecasts: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-018DP06 | Investment delivery Escalate delayed system-development milestones Inputs and examplePlanned milestone/sowing date; Observed completion/sowing date Result: Calendar date difference (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — investment delivery. Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-06-01; Observed completion/sowing date = 2025-06-09. Results: Calendar date difference = 8 days. Changed input. Change Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-05-31. Result: Calendar date difference = 9 days. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned milestone/sowing date: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-019DP06 | Public consultation Resolve objections to system development proposals Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — public consultation. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP06-020DP06 | System reporting Reconcile inconsistent land and water system codes Inputs and exampleSource system labels; Source system labels evidence reference; official system registry; official system registry evidence reference; geometry edition; geometry edition evidence reference; steward decisions; steward decisions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — system reporting. Source system labels = Missing; Source system labels evidence reference = ; official system registry = Documented; official system registry evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; geometry edition = Documented; geometry edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; steward decisions = Documented; steward decisions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Source system labels = Documented; Source system labels evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Source system labels: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water-planning engineer and land/settlement specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-001DP07 | Forest cover Investigate comparable forest-cover changes Inputs and exampleEarlier mapped class area [ha]; Later mapped class area [ha]; Matched area leaving the class [ha]; Matched area entering the class [ha]; Same fixed analysis extent [ha]; Native class and mapping version; Earlier observation date; Later observation date Result: Net class-area change; Relative class-area change; Gross loss from class; Gross gain to class (ha; %; ha; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — forest cover. Earlier mapped class area = 100 ha; Later mapped class area = 90 ha; Matched area leaving the class = 18 ha; Matched area entering the class = 8 ha; Same fixed analysis extent = 200 ha; Native class and mapping version = Sample matching forest/land-use class; Earlier observation date = 2024-06-30; Later observation date = 2025-06-30. Results: Net class-area change = -10 ha; Relative class-area change = -10 %; Gross loss from class = 18 ha; Gross gain to class = 8 ha. Changed input. Change Later mapped class area = 91; Matched area entering the class = 9. Result: Net class-area change = -9 ha; Relative class-area change = -9 %; Gross loss from class = 18 ha; Gross gain to class = 9 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Earlier mapped class area: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Same boundary, definitions, observation basis and adequate map quality are required. Coverage changes and classification error are not proven land-use change. Example boundaries and transitions are fictional. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CHANGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-002DP07 | Forest inventory Prioritize forest plots missing structural measurements Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [plots]; Distinct members of that frame covered [plots]; Frame members with unknown coverage [plots] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; plots; plots) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — forest inventory. Required eligible frame = 100 plots; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 plots; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 plots. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 plots; Unknown coverage = 5 plots. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 plots; Unknown coverage = 5 plots. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-003DP07 | Restoration survival Target maintenance to poorly surviving planting cohorts Inputs and exampleOriginal cohort [plants]; Known surviving original members [plants]; Known failed original members [plants]; Original members with unknown follow-up [plants]; Replacements in a separate cohort [plants] Result: Confirmed survival lower bound; Survival upper bound; Unknown follow-up (%; %; plants) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — restoration survival. Original cohort = 450 plants; Known surviving original members = 351 plants; Known failed original members = 70 plants; Original members with unknown follow-up = 29 plants; Replacements in a separate cohort = 18 plants. Results: Confirmed survival lower bound = 78 %; Survival upper bound = 84.444 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 plants. Changed input. Change Known surviving original members = 352; Known failed original members = 69. Result: Confirmed survival lower bound = 78.222 %; Survival upper bound = 84.667 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 plants. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SURVIVALImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-004DP07 | Forest alerts Assign unresolved forest-disturbance investigations Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — forest alerts. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-005DP07 | Fire preparedness Prioritize fire prevention and preparedness locations Inputs and exampleFuel observations; Fuel observations evidence reference; weather; weather evidence reference; fire history; fire history evidence reference; exposed assets; exposed assets evidence reference; access; access evidence reference; response capacity; response capacity evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — fire preparedness. Fuel observations = Missing; Fuel observations evidence reference = ; weather = Documented; weather evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; fire history = Documented; fire history evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; exposed assets = Documented; exposed assets evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; access = Documented; access evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; response capacity = Documented; response capacity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Fuel observations = Documented; Fuel observations evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Fuel observations: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-006DP07 | Encroachment Refer suspected forest encroachment for verification Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — encroachment. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-007DP07 | Restoration selection Compare assisted regeneration and planting alternatives Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Assisted natural regeneration. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional assisted natural regeneration option: compare the documented Site degradation, natural regeneration.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-008DP07 | Species selection Shortlist restoration species suited to site conditions Inputs and exampleSpecies traits; Species traits evidence reference; soil; soil evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; elevation; elevation evidence reference; native range; native range evidence reference; site objectives; site objectives evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — species selection. Species traits = Missing; Species traits evidence reference = ; soil = Documented; soil evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rainfall = Documented; rainfall evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; elevation = Documented; elevation evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; native range = Documented; native range evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; site objectives = Documented; site objectives evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Species traits = Documented; Species traits evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Species traits: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-009DP07 | Nursery supply Plan seedling production for approved planting demand Inputs and examplePhysical stock [seedlings]; Quarantined stock [seedlings]; Expired stock [seedlings]; Committed usable stock [seedlings]; Additional demand [seedlings]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days] Result: Uncommitted usable stock; Additional demand gap (seedlings; seedlings) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — nursery supply. Physical stock = 1,200 seedlings; Quarantined stock = 100 seedlings; Expired stock = 50 seedlings; Committed usable stock = 740 seedlings; Additional demand = 500 seedlings; Supplier lead time = 14 days; Remaining shelf life of usable stock = 30 days. Results: Uncommitted usable stock = 310 seedlings; Additional demand gap = 190 seedlings. Changed input. Change Physical stock = 1,201. Result: Uncommitted usable stock = 311 seedlings; Additional demand gap = 189 seedlings. Review replenishment gap. Missing input. Omit Physical stock: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INVENTORYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-010DP07 | Seed provenance Review seed and seedling provenance before deployment Inputs and exampleLot ID; Lot ID evidence reference; species; species evidence reference; provenance; provenance evidence reference; collection permit; collection permit evidence reference; health test; health test evidence reference; planting site; planting site evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — seed provenance. Lot ID = Missing; Lot ID evidence reference = ; species = Documented; species evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; provenance = Documented; provenance evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; collection permit = Documented; collection permit evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; health test = Documented; health test evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; planting site = Documented; planting site evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Lot ID = Documented; Lot ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Lot ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-011DP07 | Invasive plants Prioritize invasive-species control and follow-up Inputs and exampleSpecies observations; Species observations evidence reference; occupied area; occupied area evidence reference; spread; spread evidence reference; treatment history; treatment history evidence reference; ecological sensitivity; ecological sensitivity evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — invasive plants. Species observations = Missing; Species observations evidence reference = ; occupied area = Documented; occupied area evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; spread = Documented; spread evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; treatment history = Documented; treatment history evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; ecological sensitivity = Documented; ecological sensitivity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Species observations = Documented; Species observations evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Species observations: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-012DP07 | Watershed protection Prioritize forest catchments needing conservation action Inputs and exampleRainfall erosivity [MJ mm/(ha h year)]; Soil erodibility [t ha h/(ha MJ mm)]; Slope-length and steepness factor [ratio]; Cover-management factor [fraction]; Support-practice factor [fraction] Result: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss (t/ha/year) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — watershed protection. Rainfall erosivity = 950 MJ mm/(ha h year); Soil erodibility = 0.035 t ha h/(ha MJ mm); Slope-length and steepness factor = 2.8 ratio; Cover-management factor = 0.24 fraction; Support-practice factor = 0.7 fraction. Results: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss = 15.641 t/ha/year. Changed input. Change Rainfall erosivity = 951. Result: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss = 15.657 t/ha/year. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Rainfall erosivity: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits This USLE factor product is not a full RUSLE2 run, measured loss, delivered sediment, gully loss or landslide forecast. Local factors and uncertainty need review. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · USLE factor product United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service · 1980 technical publication SA-TP 11; Universal Soil Loss Equation, printed page 2; metric conversion appendix, printed page 40 Government publication - United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service EROSIONImplementation: prototype Method source: S80 |
| DEC-DP07-013DP07 | Forest carbon Review inventory evidence for carbon-stock estimates Inputs and exampleEarlier carbon density [t C/ha]; Later carbon density [t C/ha]; Same inventory area [ha]; Included pools and allometry references Result: Carbon stock change; Carbon-density change (t C; t C/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — forest carbon. Earlier carbon density = 100 t C/ha; Later carbon density = 90 t C/ha; Same inventory area = 85 ha; Included pools and allometry references = Sample matching biomass pools; source model required. Results: Carbon stock change = -850 t C; Carbon-density change = -10 t C/ha. Changed input. Change Earlier carbon density = 101. Result: Carbon stock change = -935 t C; Carbon-density change = -11 t C/ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Earlier carbon density: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Inventory plots, allometry and uncertainty remain required evidence. Stock change is not an issued carbon credit, additionality test or payable service. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Carbon stock-difference component Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change · Section 2.3.1.1, equation 2.8, stock-difference method Institution publication - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change CARBONImplementation: prototype Method source: S79 |
| DEC-DP07-014DP07 | Community forestry Address gaps in community forestry participation Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [communities]; Distinct members of that frame covered [communities]; Frame members with unknown coverage [communities] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; communities; communities) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community forestry. Required eligible frame = 100 communities; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 communities; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 communities. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 communities; Unknown coverage = 5 communities. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 communities; Unknown coverage = 5 communities. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-015DP07 | Timber authorization Refer complete timber-use cases for formal determination Inputs and examplePermit request; Permit request evidence reference; species; species evidence reference; quantity; quantity evidence reference; provenance; provenance evidence reference; forest plan; forest plan evidence reference; current conditions; current conditions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — timber authorization. Permit request = Missing; Permit request evidence reference = ; species = Documented; species evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; quantity = Documented; quantity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; provenance = Documented; provenance evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; forest plan = Documented; forest plan evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current conditions = Documented; current conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Permit request = Documented; Permit request evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Permit request: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S09, S48, S49 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP07-016DP07 | Plantation management Schedule silvicultural work by stand condition Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — plantation management. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-017DP07 | Ecotourism Compare visitor demand with safe site capacity Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [visitors/day]; Rated capacity for that period [visitors/day]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [visitors/day] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (visitors/day; visitors/day) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — ecotourism. Demand in the selected period = 150 visitors/day; Rated capacity for that period = 180 visitors/day; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 visitors/day. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 visitors/day; Usable capacity = 135 visitors/day. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 visitors/day; Usable capacity = 135 visitors/day. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-018DP07 | Biodiversity monitoring Select comparable forest biodiversity surveys Inputs and exampleObserved distinct species [species]; Survey effort [hours]; Survey protocol and version; Survey season and taxonomic scope; All planned survey visits completed Result: Observed richness; Recorded effort (species; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — biodiversity monitoring. Observed distinct species = 28 species; Survey effort = 18 hours; Survey protocol and version = Sample protocol1; Survey season and taxonomic scope = Sample matched season / taxon group; All planned survey visits completed = Yes. Results: Observed richness = 28 species; Recorded effort = 18 hours. Changed input. Change Observed distinct species = 29. Result: Observed richness = 29 species; Recorded effort = 18 hours. Review survey comparability. Missing input. Omit Observed distinct species: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Observed richness is not population size or occupancy. Comparable effort alone does not remove detection bias or establish a biodiversity trend. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BIODIVERSITYImplementation: prototype Method source: DD-GBIF |
| DEC-DP07-019DP07 | Patrol deployment Compare feasible patrol coverage routes Inputs and exampleSupplied journey distance from a documented route survey [km]; Supplied journey duration; not calculated here [minutes]; Usable vehicle/team capacity [units]; Required capacity [units]; Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window Result: Estimated travel time; Capacity minus demand (minutes; units) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — patrol deployment. 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. Results: Estimated travel time = 65 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Changed input. Change Supplied journey duration; not calculated here = 75. Result: Estimated travel time = 75 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Resolve access/capacity evidence. Missing input. Omit Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ROUTEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP07-020DP07 | Forest records Correct inconsistent forest and compartment classifications Inputs and exampleForest ID; Forest ID evidence reference; compartment label; compartment label evidence reference; source definition; source definition evidence reference; legal edition; legal edition evidence reference; steward mapping; steward mapping evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — forest records. Forest ID = Missing; Forest ID evidence reference = ; compartment label = Documented; compartment label evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source definition = Documented; source definition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; legal edition = Documented; legal edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; steward mapping = Documented; steward mapping evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Forest ID = Documented; Forest ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Forest ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-001DP08 | Rainfall anomalies Prepare reviewed rainfall-anomaly evidence Inputs and exampleComparable station rainfall reference for the same period [mm]; Observed station rainfall for that period [mm] Result: Difference; Relative change (mm; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — rainfall anomalies. Comparable station rainfall reference for the same period = 100 mm; Observed station rainfall for that period = 90 mm. Results: Difference = -10 mm; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Comparable station rainfall reference for the same period = 101. Result: Difference = -11 mm; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable station rainfall reference for the same period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ANOMALYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-002DP08 | Dry and wet spells Identify prolonged rainfall spells requiring advisory review Inputs and exampleObservation day; Daily rainfall [mm]; Example dry-day threshold [mm]; Day classified as dry when rainfall Result: Daily rainfall (mm) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Rattota rainfall station scenario. Observation day = 2025-06-01; Daily rainfall = 4 mm; Example dry-day threshold = 1 mm; Day classified as dry when rainfall = < threshold. Results: Daily rainfall = 4 mm. Changed input. Change Daily rainfall = 4.04. Result: Daily rainfall = 4.04 mm. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Observation day: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. longestDrySpell = 3 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The example threshold is configurable and is not an official warning criterion. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SPELLImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-003DP08 | Station completeness Prioritize stations with incomplete observations Inputs and exampleExpected observations in the window [observations]; Distinct valid observations [observations]; Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval [days] Result: Completeness; Age of latest observation; Missing observations (%; days; observations) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — station completeness. Expected observations in the window = 30 observations; Distinct valid observations = 24 observations; Latest valid observation = 2025-06-28; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Required observation interval = 1 days. Results: Completeness = 80 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 6 observations. Changed input. Change Expected observations in the window = 31. Result: Completeness = 77.419 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 7 observations. Check overdue observation. Missing input. Omit Expected observations in the window: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FRESHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-004DP08 | Drought monitoring Determine where historical rainfall supports SPI analysis Inputs and exampleComplete comparable baseline years [years]; Expected monthly observations [observations]; Valid comparable monthly observations [observations]; Proposed accumulation period; Station history and series homogeneity checked; Distribution fit and zero-rainfall handling documented Result: Baseline completeness; Missing monthly observations (%; observations) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — drought monitoring. Complete comparable baseline years = 30 years; Expected monthly observations = 360 observations; Valid comparable monthly observations = 350 observations; Proposed accumulation period = 3 months; Station history and series homogeneity checked = Missing; Distribution fit and zero-rainfall handling documented = Missing. Results: Baseline completeness = 97.222 %; Missing monthly observations = 10 observations. Changed input. Change Valid comparable monthly observations = 351. Result: Baseline completeness = 97.5 %; Missing monthly observations = 9 observations. Complete SPI baseline evidence. Missing input. Omit Complete comparable baseline years: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits WMO recommends a long rainfall record, ideally at least30 years. Readiness counts alone do not validate the fitted SPI method. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SPIImplementation: prototype Method source: S82 |
| DEC-DP08-005DP08 | Temperature extremes Investigate unusual maximum and minimum temperatures Inputs and exampleComparable reference value [°C]; Later/comparison value [°C] Result: Difference (°C) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — temperature extremes. Comparable reference value = 26.5 °C; Later/comparison value = 27.4 °C. Results: Difference = 0.9 °C. Changed input. Change Comparable reference value = 26.765. Result: Difference = 0.635 °C. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable reference value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ANOMALYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-006DP08 | Severe weather Prepare official-warning review cases from accepted observations Inputs and exampleForecast issuance; Forecast issuance evidence reference; observed conditions; observed conditions evidence reference; affected area; affected area evidence reference; warning criteria; warning criteria evidence reference; duty officer; duty officer evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — severe weather. Forecast issuance = Missing; Forecast issuance evidence reference = ; observed conditions = Documented; observed conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; affected area = Documented; affected area evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; warning criteria = Documented; warning criteria evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; duty officer = Documented; duty officer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Forecast issuance = Documented; Forecast issuance evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Forecast issuance: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-007DP08 | Forecast verification Review forecast errors before operational changes Inputs and exampleArchived forecast rainfall [mm]; Verifying observed rainfall [mm]; Forecast lead time [hours]; Forecast issue date; Forecast valid date Result: Forecast minus observed (mm) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — forecast verification. Archived forecast rainfall = 48 mm; Verifying observed rainfall = 41.76 mm; Forecast lead time = 24 hours; Forecast issue date = 2025-06-28; Forecast valid date = 2025-06-29. Results: Forecast minus observed = 6.24 mm. Changed input. Change Archived forecast rainfall = 48.48. Result: Forecast minus observed = 6.72 mm. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Archived forecast rainfall: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; rmse = 4.759; mae = 4.413; bias = 1.08 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match lead, valid interval, location, variable, units and observation quality. Do not verify a forecast against data available when it was issued. This date-level example supports whole-day lead times only. Issuance, verification date and lead must agree; sub-day verification needs timestamps. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Matched-pair RMSE Environment and Climate Change Canada · Displayed RMSE equation and definitions of forecast, observation and verification count Government publication - Environment and Climate Change Canada FORECASTImplementation: prototype Method source: S75 |
| DEC-DP08-008DP08 | Seasonal forecasts Assess seasonal forecast performance across past seasons Inputs and exampleArchived probability for the defined event [fraction]; Observed event indicator [events]; Independent reference forecast probability [fraction]; Forecast issue date; Event verification date; Predefined event/category and reference basis Result: Squared probability error (0–1) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — seasonal forecasts. Archived probability for the defined event = 0.7 fraction; Observed event indicator = 1 events; Independent reference forecast probability = 0.4 fraction; Forecast issue date = 2025-03-15; Event verification date = 2025-06-30; Predefined event/category and reference basis = Fictional above-normal April–June rainfall event / same category definition / independent 0.4 benchmark. Results: Squared probability error = 0.09 0–1. Changed input. Change Archived probability for the defined event = 0.71. Result: Squared probability error = 0.084 0–1. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Archived probability for the defined event: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; brier = 0.163; reference = 0.227; skill = 0.279 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Define one event, lead, observation category thresholds and an independent reference. Do not apply rainfall RMSE to probabilities or interpret one score as complete calibration. The reference probability is a fictional independent benchmark, not an estimated climatological probability. Define the whole seasonal verification interval and category before observing the outcome. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Binary Brier score and skill component Japan Meteorological Agency · Sections A.3.1 and A.3.2, equations A.3.1 and A.3.3, printed page 239, PDF page 7 Government publication - Japan Meteorological Agency FORECASTImplementation: prototype Method source: DD-BRIER |
| DEC-DP08-009DP08 | Station siting Select candidate locations for observation-network expansion Inputs and exampleCoverage gaps; Coverage gaps evidence reference; terrain; terrain evidence reference; exposure; exposure evidence reference; access; access evidence reference; power; power evidence reference; communication; communication evidence reference; siting standards; siting standards evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — station siting. Coverage gaps = Missing; Coverage gaps evidence reference = ; terrain = Documented; terrain evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; exposure = Documented; exposure evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; access = Documented; access evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; power = Documented; power evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; communication = Documented; communication evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; siting standards = Documented; siting standards evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Coverage gaps = Documented; Coverage gaps evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Coverage gaps: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-010DP08 | Instrument maintenance Schedule calibration and repair of weather instruments Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — instrument maintenance. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-011DP08 | Data homogenization Identify time series affected by station or instrument changes Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — data homogenization. Original source value/definition = Station metadata: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Station metadata: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-012DP08 | Agrometeorology Prioritize agricultural advisories by crop exposure Inputs and exampleCrop calendar; Crop calendar evidence reference; weather observations; weather observations evidence reference; forecasts; forecasts evidence reference; vulnerable crop stages; vulnerable crop stages evidence reference; advisory protocol; advisory protocol evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — agrometeorology. Crop calendar = Missing; Crop calendar evidence reference = ; weather observations = Documented; weather observations evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; forecasts = Documented; forecasts evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; vulnerable crop stages = Documented; vulnerable crop stages evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; advisory protocol = Documented; advisory protocol evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Crop calendar = Documented; Crop calendar evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Crop calendar: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-013DP08 | Evapotranspiration Assess weather-input fitness for agricultural water estimates Inputs and exampleRadiation; Radiation evidence reference; temperature; temperature evidence reference; humidity; humidity evidence reference; wind; wind evidence reference; reference-site metadata; reference-site metadata evidence reference; observation dates; observation dates evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — evapotranspiration. Radiation = Missing; Radiation evidence reference = ; temperature = Documented; temperature evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; humidity = Documented; humidity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; wind = Documented; wind evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; reference-site metadata = Documented; reference-site metadata evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; observation dates = Documented; observation dates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Radiation = Documented; Radiation evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Radiation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-014DP08 | Marine services Refer marine forecast exceptions for specialist review Inputs and exampleWind; Wind evidence reference; waves; waves evidence reference; forecast areas; forecast areas evidence reference; vessel advisories; vessel advisories evidence reference; issue time; issue time evidence reference; approved criteria; approved criteria evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Western coastal waters — marine services scenario. Wind = Missing; Wind evidence reference = ; waves = Documented; waves evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; forecast areas = Documented; forecast areas evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; vessel advisories = Documented; vessel advisories evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; issue time = Documented; issue time evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approved criteria = Documented; approved criteria evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Wind = Documented; Wind evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Wind: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. These are labelled national marine-sector examples, outside the Knuckles inland project area. No actual marine forecast or warning is issued. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-015DP08 | Aviation services Prioritize aviation meteorological service interruptions Inputs and exampleScheduled observation window [hours]; Union of qualifying outage intervals [hours]; Eligible service requests [requests]; Failed eligible requests [requests]; Measured data-feed transport response time; separate from observation availability [ms] Result: Time availability; Request success; Measured response time (%; %; ms) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Katunayake airport — aviation services scenario. Scheduled observation window = 168 hours; Union of qualifying outage intervals = 13 hours; Eligible service requests = 1,000 requests; Failed eligible requests = 40 requests; Measured data-feed transport response time; separate from observation availability = 800 ms. Results: Time availability = 92.262 %; Request success = 96 %; Measured response time = 800 ms. Changed input. Change Scheduled observation window = 169. Result: Time availability = 92.308 %; Request success = 96 %; Measured response time = 800 ms. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Scheduled observation window: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits State maintenance exclusions, operating window, probe, workload and service objective. Observed response time is not a p95 claim unless the percentile is actually measured. These are fictional service-monitoring returns for named airport contexts. No aviation service, warning feed or endpoint is contacted. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RELIABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-016DP08 | Lightning exposure Target awareness using verified lightning-risk evidence Inputs and exampleDistinct households in the matching assessed frame [households]; Those households reported within the source-defined area; counted once [households]; Boundary edition and spatial predicate; Hazard/constraint/source class and observation period; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Spatially matched share; Distinct matched receptors (%; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — lightning exposure. Distinct households in the matching assessed frame = 75 households; Those households reported within the source-defined area; counted once = 18 households; 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. Results: Spatially matched share = 24 %; Distinct matched receptors = 18 households. Changed input. Change Distinct households in the matching assessed frame = 76. Result: Spatially matched share = 23.684 %; Distinct matched receptors = 18 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct households in the matching assessed frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-017DP08 | Climate trends Review long-term trends in homogeneous station records Inputs and exampleComparable observation [°C] Result: Observed value (°C) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — climate trends. Comparable observation = 28.1 °C. Results: Observed value = 28.1 °C. Changed input. Change Comparable observation = 28.381. Result: Observed value = 28.381 °C. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable observation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; mean = 26.233; sd = 1.955 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required TRENDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-018DP08 | Observation reconciliation Investigate disagreement between nearby and reference sensors Inputs and exampleOriginal source measurement [mm]; Independent comparison measurement [mm]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition Result: Difference; Relative change (mm; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — observation reconciliation. Original source measurement = 100 mm; Independent comparison measurement = 90 mm; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable mm measure; same input scope. Results: Difference = -10 mm; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Original source measurement = 101. Result: Difference = -11 mm; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original source measurement: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-019DP08 | Climate requests Clear delayed requests for permitted climate data Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — climate requests. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP08-020DP08 | Forecast publication Check source rights and approval before publishing products Inputs and exampleProduct version; Product version evidence reference; forecast validity; forecast validity evidence reference; review; review evidence reference; publication authority; publication authority evidence reference; license; license evidence reference; audience; audience evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — forecast publication. Product version = Missing; Product version evidence reference = ; forecast validity = Documented; forecast validity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; review = Documented; review evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; publication authority = Documented; publication authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; license = Documented; license evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; audience = Documented; audience evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Product version = Documented; Product version evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Product version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-001DP09 | Crop economics Target export crops with weak enterprise returns Inputs and exampleSaleable output [kg]; Realized price [LKR/kg]; Variable costs [LKR]; Matching crop area [ha]; Crop and saleable-output basis Result: Enterprise gross margin; Gross margin per hectare; Variable-cost break-even price (LKR; LKR/ha; LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — crop economics. Saleable output = 600 kg; Realized price = 2,000 LKR/kg; Variable costs = 650,000 LKR; Matching crop area = 1 ha; Crop and saleable-output basis = Saleable dry pepper / fictional one-hectare crop enterprise / same season. Results: Enterprise gross margin = 550,000 LKR; Gross margin per hectare = 550,000 LKR/ha; Variable-cost break-even price = 1,083.333 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Saleable output = 601. Result: Enterprise gross margin = 552,000 LKR; Gross margin per hectare = 552,000 LKR/ha; Variable-cost break-even price = 1,081.531 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Saleable output: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep fixed costs, family-labour opportunity cost, taxes and financing identifiable. Gross margin is not net profit. Crop, prices and costs are fictional coherent enterprise assumptions. Gross margin excludes fixed and financing costs; it is not household income or net profit. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Enterprise gross margin Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Chapter 4, Gross margin and section 4.7.1 Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations MARGINImplementation: prototype Method source: S76 |
| DEC-DP09-002DP09 | Market opportunities Prioritize feasible export-crop market development Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Pepper quality and buyer linkage. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional pepper quality and buyer linkage option: compare the documented Crop-market options, demand evidence.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-003DP09 | Post-harvest quality Select processing stages with excessive spice losses Inputs and exampleBatch input on stated moisture basis [kg]; Saleable output [kg]; Usable by-product [kg]; Closing stock [kg]; Documented transfers out [kg] Result: Unaccounted physical share; Unaccounted mass (%; kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — post-harvest quality. Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,200 kg; Saleable output = 970 kg; Usable by-product = 85 kg; Closing stock = 45 kg; Documented transfers out = 20 kg. Results: Unaccounted physical share = 6.667 %; Unaccounted mass = 80 kg. Changed input. Change Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,201. Result: Unaccounted physical share = 6.744 %; Unaccounted mass = 81 kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Batch input on stated moisture basis: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use a consistent moisture basis and process boundary. Unaccounted mass is not automatically avoidable food loss or spoilage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required LOSSImplementation: prototype Method source: S57 |
| DEC-DP09-004DP09 | Crop productivity Prioritize crop-area combinations with weak productivity Inputs and exampleHarvested crop output [kg]; Matching harvested crop area [ha] Result: Crop yield (kg/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — crop productivity. Harvested crop output = 2,800 kg; Matching harvested crop area = 2 ha. Results: Crop yield = 1,400 kg/ha. Changed input. Change Harvested crop output = 2,801. Result: Crop yield = 1,400.5 kg/ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Harvested crop output: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The fictional example uses saleable dry pepper from matching harvested area; green and dry output are not combined. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-005DP09 | Crop suitability Shortlist export crops suited to local soils and climate Inputs and exampleCrop requirements; Crop requirements evidence reference; soil; soil evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; temperature; temperature evidence reference; slope; slope evidence reference; shade; shade evidence reference; water access; water access evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — crop suitability. Crop requirements = Missing; Crop requirements evidence reference = ; soil = Documented; soil evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rainfall = Documented; rainfall evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; temperature = Documented; temperature evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; slope = Documented; slope evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; shade = Documented; shade evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; water access = Documented; water access evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Crop requirements = Documented; Crop requirements evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Crop requirements: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-006DP09 | Planting materials Plan certified planting-material supply Inputs and examplePhysical stock [plants]; Quarantined stock [plants]; Expired stock [plants]; Committed usable stock [plants]; Additional demand [plants]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days] Result: Uncommitted usable stock; Additional demand gap (plants; plants) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — planting materials. Physical stock = 1,200 plants; Quarantined stock = 100 plants; Expired stock = 50 plants; Committed usable stock = 740 plants; Additional demand = 500 plants; Supplier lead time = 14 days; Remaining shelf life of usable stock = 30 days. Results: Uncommitted usable stock = 310 plants; Additional demand gap = 190 plants. Changed input. Change Physical stock = 1,201. Result: Uncommitted usable stock = 311 plants; Additional demand gap = 189 plants. Review replenishment gap. Missing input. Omit Physical stock: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INVENTORYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-007DP09 | Plant health Investigate emerging export-crop pest and disease patterns Inputs and exampleReference affected plants per 100 inspected [affected plants per 100 inspected]; Observed affected plants per 100 inspected [affected plants per 100 inspected] Result: Difference; Relative change (affected plants per 100 inspected; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — plant health. Reference affected plants per 100 inspected = 12 affected plants per 100 inspected; Observed affected plants per 100 inspected = 18 affected plants per 100 inspected. Results: Difference = 6 affected plants per 100 inspected; Relative change = 50 %. Changed input. Change Reference affected plants per 100 inspected = 12.12. Result: Difference = 5.88 affected plants per 100 inspected; Relative change = 48.515 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Reference affected plants per 100 inspected: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ANOMALYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-008DP09 | Quality compliance Refer spice quality results outside applicable specifications Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [%]; Example lower comparison bound [%]; Example upper comparison bound [%]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (%) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — quality compliance. Parameter and applicable use = Spice-lot moisture; Measured result = 13.5 %; Example lower comparison bound = 0 %; Example upper comparison bound = 12 %; Original and limit unit = %; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 13.5 %. Changed input. Change Measured result = 13.635. Result: Measured value = 13.635 %. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-009DP09 | Replanting Compare rehabilitation and replanting of ageing crop stands Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Rehabilitate the existing stand. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional rehabilitate the existing stand option: compare the documented Stand age, yield.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-010DP09 | Extension coverage Target export-crop growers lacking technical support Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [growers]; Distinct members of that frame covered [growers]; Frame members with unknown coverage [growers] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; growers; growers) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — extension coverage. Required eligible frame = 100 growers; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 growers; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 growers. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 growers; Unknown coverage = 5 growers. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 growers; Unknown coverage = 5 growers. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-011DP09 | Certification readiness Review grower evidence for requested certification Inputs and exampleGrower ID; Grower ID evidence reference; scheme version; scheme version evidence reference; production records; production records evidence reference; inspections; inspections evidence reference; traceability; traceability evidence reference; nonconformities; nonconformities evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — certification readiness. Grower ID = Missing; Grower ID evidence reference = ; scheme version = Documented; scheme version evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; production records = Documented; production records evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspections = Documented; inspections evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; traceability = Documented; traceability evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; nonconformities = Documented; nonconformities evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Grower ID = Documented; Grower ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Grower ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-012DP09 | Value addition Appraise investments in grading drying and processing Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP09-013DP09 | Traceability Resolve broken links from export-crop lots to farms Inputs and exampleUpstream lot/source reference; Downstream lot/batch reference; Exact upstream source version; Recorded upstream issue Result: Broken or affected lineage (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — traceability. Upstream lot/source reference = EXAMPLE-ROOT; Downstream lot/batch reference = 2025-BATCH-1; Exact upstream source version = Sample version1; Recorded upstream issue = Confirmed defect. Results: Broken or affected lineage = 1 items. Changed input. Change Recorded upstream issue = None. Result: Broken or affected lineage = 0 items. Review recorded lineage. Missing input. Omit Upstream lot/source reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Recorded lineage is not proof of product identity or recall authority. Preserve multi-source batches, transfers and versions; do not clear unlinked lots as safe. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-014DP09 | Harvest timing Compare harvest windows against quality and market constraints Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — harvest timing. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-015DP09 | Climate adaptation Compare shade water and soil adaptation practices Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Improve shade management. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional improve shade management option: compare the documented Crop exposure, practice costs.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-016DP09 | Subsidy follow-up Verify establishment outcomes after crop-development assistance Inputs and exampleOriginal cohort [plants]; Known surviving original members [plants]; Known failed original members [plants]; Original members with unknown follow-up [plants]; Replacements in a separate cohort [plants] Result: Confirmed survival lower bound; Survival upper bound; Unknown follow-up (%; %; plants) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — subsidy follow-up. Original cohort = 450 plants; Known surviving original members = 351 plants; Known failed original members = 70 plants; Original members with unknown follow-up = 29 plants; Replacements in a separate cohort = 18 plants. Results: Confirmed survival lower bound = 78 %; Survival upper bound = 84.444 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 plants. Changed input. Change Known surviving original members = 352; Known failed original members = 69. Result: Confirmed survival lower bound = 78.222 %; Survival upper bound = 84.667 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 plants. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SURVIVALImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-017DP09 | Research priorities Select export-crop research questions with evidence gaps Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Pepper disease-management study. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional pepper disease-management study option: compare the documented Crop constraints, trial evidence.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-018DP09 | Soil conservation Prioritize erosion control in sloping export-crop lands Inputs and exampleRainfall erosivity [MJ mm/(ha h year)]; Soil erodibility [t ha h/(ha MJ mm)]; Slope-length and steepness factor [ratio]; Cover-management factor [fraction]; Support-practice factor [fraction] Result: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss (t/ha/year) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — soil conservation. Rainfall erosivity = 950 MJ mm/(ha h year); Soil erodibility = 0.035 t ha h/(ha MJ mm); Slope-length and steepness factor = 2.8 ratio; Cover-management factor = 0.24 fraction; Support-practice factor = 0.7 fraction. Results: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss = 15.641 t/ha/year. Changed input. Change Rainfall erosivity = 951. Result: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss = 15.657 t/ha/year. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Rainfall erosivity: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits This USLE factor product is not a full RUSLE2 run, measured loss, delivered sediment, gully loss or landslide forecast. Local factors and uncertainty need review. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · USLE factor product United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service · 1980 technical publication SA-TP 11; Universal Soil Loss Equation, printed page 2; metric conversion appendix, printed page 40 Government publication - United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service EROSIONImplementation: prototype Method source: S80 |
| DEC-DP09-019DP09 | Grower records Reconcile inconsistent crop names and varieties Inputs and exampleSource crop label; Source crop label evidence reference; scientific name; scientific name evidence reference; variety registry; variety registry evidence reference; definition; definition evidence reference; steward decision; steward decision evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — grower records. Source crop label = Missing; Source crop label evidence reference = ; scientific name = Documented; scientific name evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; variety registry = Documented; variety registry evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; definition = Documented; definition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; steward decision = Documented; steward decision evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Source crop label = Documented; Source crop label evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Source crop label: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP09-020DP09 | Programme evaluation Evaluate export-crop support outcomes beyond participation Inputs and exampleTreatment Enterprise gross margin before [LKR/ha]; Treatment Enterprise gross margin after [LKR/ha]; Comparison Enterprise gross margin before [LKR/ha]; Comparison Enterprise gross margin after [LKR/ha]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (LKR/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — programme evaluation. Treatment Enterprise gross margin before = 420,000 LKR/ha; Treatment Enterprise gross margin after = 590,000 LKR/ha; Comparison Enterprise gross margin before = 390,000 LKR/ha; Comparison Enterprise gross margin after = 460,000 LKR/ha; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Enterprise gross margin /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 100,000 LKR/ha. Changed input. Change Treatment Enterprise gross margin before = 420,001. Result: Difference in changes = 99,999 LKR/ha. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Enterprise gross margin before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP10-001DP10 | Variety adoption Target district-specific rice variety extension Inputs and exampleSown hectares in the stated variety [ha]; Area with accepted observations [ha]; Native class/variety and definition edition Result: Class area; Share of selected mapped area; Class observation coverage (ha; %; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Bg 300. Sown hectares in the stated variety = 120 ha; Area with accepted observations = 72 ha; Native class/variety and definition edition = Bg 300 / stated scenario definition 1. Results: Class area = 120 ha; Share of selected mapped area = 4.762 %; Class observation coverage = 60 %. Changed input. Change Sown hectares in the stated variety = 121. Result: Class area = 121 ha; Share of selected mapped area = 4.8 %; Class observation coverage = 59.504 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Sown hectares in the stated variety: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. total = 2,520; hhi = 0.206 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COMPOSITIONImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-002DP10 | Irrigation classes Allocate support by rainfed and irrigated cultivation needs Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [farms]; Distinct members of that frame covered [farms]; Frame members with unknown coverage [farms] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; farms; farms) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — irrigation classes. Required eligible frame = 100 farms; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 farms; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 farms. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 farms; Unknown coverage = 5 farms. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 farms; Unknown coverage = 5 farms. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-003DP10 | Input costs Investigate high local farm production costs Inputs and exampleLabour cost [LKR]; Material/input cost [LKR]; Other non-overlapping cost [LKR]; Verified matching hectares [ha] Result: Cost per matching unit; Total cost (LKR/ha; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — input costs. Labour cost = 180,000 LKR; Material/input cost = 255,000 LKR; Other non-overlapping cost = 62,000 LKR; Verified matching hectares = 5.4 ha. Results: Cost per matching unit = 92,037.037 LKR/ha; Total cost = 497,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Labour cost = 180,001. Result: Cost per matching unit = 92,037.222 LKR/ha; Total cost = 497,001 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Labour cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COSTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-004DP10 | Sowing progress Adjust extension schedules to planting progress Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — sowing progress. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-005DP10 | Provincial production Address differences between crop targets and accepted output Inputs and examplePlanned value [kg]; Observed value [kg] Result: Difference; Relative change (kg; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — provincial production. Planned value = 100 kg; Observed value = 90 kg. Results: Difference = -10 kg; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Planned value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 kg; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-006DP10 | Pest response Prioritize local pest investigation visits Inputs and examplePest reports; Pest reports evidence reference; verified incidence; verified incidence evidence reference; crop stage; crop stage evidence reference; affected fields; affected fields evidence reference; expert criteria; expert criteria evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — pest response. Pest reports = Missing; Pest reports evidence reference = ; verified incidence = Documented; verified incidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; crop stage = Documented; crop stage evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; affected fields = Documented; affected fields evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; expert criteria = Documented; expert criteria evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Pest reports = Documented; Pest reports evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Pest reports: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-007DP10 | Extension staffing Redistribute extension effort where service demand exceeds capacity Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [staff hours]; Rated capacity for that period [staff hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [staff hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (staff hours; staff hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — extension staffing. Demand in the selected period = 150 staff hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 staff hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 staff hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-008DP10 | Seed distribution Match approved seasonal seed demand to valid stocks Inputs and examplePhysical stock [kg seed]; Quarantined stock [kg seed]; Expired stock [kg seed]; Committed usable stock [kg seed]; Additional demand [kg seed]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days] Result: Uncommitted usable stock; Additional demand gap (kg seed; kg seed) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — seed distribution. Physical stock = 1,200 kg seed; Quarantined stock = 100 kg seed; Expired stock = 50 kg seed; Committed usable stock = 740 kg seed; Additional demand = 500 kg seed; Supplier lead time = 14 days; Remaining shelf life of usable stock = 30 days. Results: Uncommitted usable stock = 310 kg seed; Additional demand gap = 190 kg seed. Changed input. Change Physical stock = 1,201. Result: Uncommitted usable stock = 311 kg seed; Additional demand gap = 189 kg seed. Review replenishment gap. Missing input. Omit Physical stock: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INVENTORYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-009DP10 | Soil testing Schedule sampling where fertilizer advice lacks evidence Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [farms]; Distinct members of that frame covered [farms]; Frame members with unknown coverage [farms] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; farms; farms) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — soil testing. Required eligible frame = 100 farms; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 farms; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 farms. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 farms; Unknown coverage = 5 farms. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 farms; Unknown coverage = 5 farms. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-010DP10 | Demonstration farms Select comparable sites for technology demonstrations Inputs and exampleCandidate farms; Candidate farms evidence reference; soil; soil evidence reference; crop; crop evidence reference; water; water evidence reference; farmer consent; farmer consent evidence reference; trial objectives; trial objectives evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — demonstration farms. Candidate farms = Missing; Candidate farms evidence reference = ; soil = Documented; soil evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; crop = Documented; crop evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; water = Documented; water evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; farmer consent = Documented; farmer consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; trial objectives = Documented; trial objectives evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Candidate farms = Documented; Candidate farms evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Candidate farms: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-011DP10 | Training outcomes Follow up training participants reaching verified adoption Inputs and exampleDistinct original provincial service area in the stated cohort [cases]; Those original cohort members with documented review [cases]; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition [cases]; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — training outcomes. Distinct original provincial service area in the stated cohort = 180 cases; Those original cohort members with documented review = 132 cases; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition = 96 cases; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown = 12 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct original provincial service area in the stated cohort = 181. Result: Verified completion share = 53.039 %; Not verified complete = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct original provincial service area in the stated cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-012DP10 | Crop damage Prioritize verification of provincial crop-loss reports Inputs and exampleIncident; Incident evidence reference; crop; crop evidence reference; affected hectares; affected hectares evidence reference; weather; weather evidence reference; field evidence; field evidence evidence reference; claim date; claim date evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — crop damage. Incident = Missing; Incident evidence reference = ; crop = Documented; crop evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; affected hectares = Documented; affected hectares evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; weather = Documented; weather evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; field evidence = Documented; field evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; claim date = Documented; claim date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Incident = Documented; Incident evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Incident: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-013DP10 | Mechanization access Plan shared machinery services for uncovered farming areas Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [machine hours]; Rated capacity for that period [machine hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [machine hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (machine hours; machine hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — mechanization access. Demand in the selected period = 150 machine hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 machine hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 machine hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 machine hours; Usable capacity = 135 machine hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 machine hours; Usable capacity = 135 machine hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-014DP10 | Water-saving practices Compare irrigation-management practices on equivalent farms Inputs and exampleSaleable crop output [kg]; Matching irrigation water input [m³] Result: Crop water productivity (kg/m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — water-saving practices. Saleable crop output = 19,780 kg; Matching irrigation water input = 7,200 m³. Results: Crop water productivity = 2.747 kg/m³. Changed input. Change Saleable crop output = 19,781. Result: Crop water productivity = 2.747 kg/m³. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Saleable crop output: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-015DP10 | Diversification Shortlist locally viable alternative crop programmes Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Drought-tolerant field crops. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional drought-tolerant field crops option: compare the documented Crop suitability, gross margins.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-016DP10 | Horticulture Prioritize vegetable and fruit post-harvest support Inputs and exampleBatch input on stated moisture basis [kg]; Saleable output [kg]; Usable by-product [kg]; Closing stock [kg]; Documented transfers out [kg] Result: Unaccounted physical share; Unaccounted mass (%; kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — horticulture. Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,200 kg; Saleable output = 970 kg; Usable by-product = 85 kg; Closing stock = 45 kg; Documented transfers out = 20 kg. Results: Unaccounted physical share = 6.667 %; Unaccounted mass = 80 kg. Changed input. Change Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,201. Result: Unaccounted physical share = 6.744 %; Unaccounted mass = 81 kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Batch input on stated moisture basis: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use a consistent moisture basis and process boundary. Unaccounted mass is not automatically avoidable food loss or spoilage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required LOSSImplementation: prototype Method source: S57 |
| DEC-DP10-017DP10 | Budget delivery Reconcile provincial agriculture funding and verified activities Inputs and exampleApproved financing need [LKR]; Confirmed commitments [LKR]; Funds actually disbursed [LKR]; Verified eligible expenditure [LKR] Result: Unfunded need; Committed but not disbursed; Disbursed but not spent (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — budget delivery. 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. Results: Unfunded need = 850,000 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Approved financing need = 3,500,001. Result: Unfunded need = 850,001 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Review unfunded need. Missing input. Omit Approved financing need: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep commitments, cash receipts, expenditure and verified physical outputs separate. Negative balances flag overcommitment or reconciliation; no automatic accounting adjustment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FUNDINGImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-018DP10 | Service inclusion Address underserved smallholder and vulnerable farmer groups Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [farms]; Distinct members of that frame covered [farms]; Frame members with unknown coverage [farms] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; farms; farms) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service inclusion. Required eligible frame = 100 farms; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 farms; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 farms. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 farms; Unknown coverage = 5 farms. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 farms; Unknown coverage = 5 farms. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-019DP10 | Reporting consistency Correct differences between district crop returns Inputs and exampleOriginal source measurement [kg]; Independent comparison measurement [kg]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition Result: Difference; Relative change (kg; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — reporting consistency. Original source measurement = 100 kg; Independent comparison measurement = 90 kg; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable kg measure; same input scope. Results: Difference = -10 kg; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Original source measurement = 101. Result: Difference = -11 kg; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original source measurement: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP10-020DP10 | Provincial outcomes Evaluate provincial agricultural programmes Inputs and exampleTreatment Crop productivity before [kg/ha]; Treatment Crop productivity after [kg/ha]; Comparison Crop productivity before [kg/ha]; Comparison Crop productivity after [kg/ha]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (kg/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — provincial outcomes. Treatment Crop productivity before = 42 kg/ha; Treatment Crop productivity after = 59 kg/ha; Comparison Crop productivity before = 39 kg/ha; Comparison Crop productivity after = 46 kg/ha; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Crop productivity /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 10 kg/ha. Changed input. Change Treatment Crop productivity before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 kg/ha. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Crop productivity before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Provincial crop specialist and extension coordinator | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP11-001DP11 | Output verification Prioritize project outputs awaiting independent verification Inputs and exampleDistinct original programme activity in the stated cohort [cases]; Those original cohort members with documented review [cases]; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition [cases]; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — output verification. Distinct original programme activity in the stated cohort = 180 cases; Those original cohort members with documented review = 132 cases; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition = 96 cases; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown = 12 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct original programme activity in the stated cohort = 181. Result: Verified completion share = 53.039 %; Not verified complete = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct original programme activity in the stated cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-002DP11 | Delivery performance Investigate spending ahead of verified physical progress Inputs and examplePhased budget for the period [LKR]; Actual spending [LKR]; Planned physical progress [%]; Independently verified physical progress [%] Result: Spending against phased budget; Verified physical progress; Verified minus planned progress (%; %; percentage points) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — delivery performance. Phased budget for the period = 1,800,000 LKR; Actual spending = 1,200,000 LKR; Planned physical progress = 60 %; Independently verified physical progress = 40 %. Results: Spending against phased budget = 66.667 %; Verified physical progress = 40 %; Verified minus planned progress = -20 percentage points. Changed input. Change Phased budget for the period = 1,800,001. Result: Spending against phased budget = 66.667 %; Verified physical progress = 40 %; Verified minus planned progress = -20 percentage points. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Phased budget for the period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Proposed; awaiting scope confirmation Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-003DP11 | Reporting bottlenecks Resolve source reviews blocking required project reports Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — reporting bottlenecks. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-004DP11 | Intervention overlap Coordinate overlapping interventions at the same sites Inputs and examplePermitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit Result: Overlapping days (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — intervention overlap. Permitted recipient/service reference = Laggala Pallegama — intervention overlap; 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. Results: Overlapping days = 61 days. Changed input. Change Other support period begins = 2025-01-01; Other support period ends = 2025-06-30. Result: Overlapping days = 181 days. Review possible overlap. Missing input. Omit Permitted recipient/service reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPEATImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-005DP11 | Annual planning Compare work-plan alternatives within programme constraints Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Complete committed activities first. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional complete committed activities first option: compare the documented Activities, costs.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-006DP11 | Funding commitments Identify unfunded activities and unfulfilled co-financing Inputs and exampleApproved financing need [LKR]; Confirmed commitments [LKR]; Funds actually disbursed [LKR]; Verified eligible expenditure [LKR] Result: Unfunded need; Committed but not disbursed; Disbursed but not spent (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — funding commitments. 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. Results: Unfunded need = 850,000 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Approved financing need = 3,500,001. Result: Unfunded need = 850,001 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Review unfunded need. Missing input. Omit Approved financing need: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep commitments, cash receipts, expenditure and verified physical outputs separate. Negative balances flag overcommitment or reconciliation; no automatic accounting adjustment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Proposed; awaiting scope confirmation Validation required Validation required FUNDINGImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-007DP11 | Procurement scheduling Prioritize procurements on the implementation critical path Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — procurement scheduling. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Proposed; awaiting scope confirmation Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-008DP11 | Contract performance Escalate contract milestone delays and unresolved deliverables Inputs and examplePlanned milestone/sowing date; Observed completion/sowing date Result: Calendar date difference (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — contract performance. Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-06-01; Observed completion/sowing date = 2025-06-09. Results: Calendar date difference = 8 days. Changed input. Change Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-05-31. Result: Calendar date difference = 9 days. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned milestone/sowing date: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Proposed; awaiting scope confirmation Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-009DP11 | Safeguards Refer unresolved environmental and social risks Inputs and exampleActivity scope; Activity scope evidence reference; screening; screening evidence reference; affected people; affected people evidence reference; safeguards; safeguards evidence reference; mitigations; mitigations evidence reference; reviewer; reviewer evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — safeguards. Activity scope = Missing; Activity scope evidence reference = ; screening = Documented; screening evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; affected people = Documented; affected people evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; safeguards = Documented; safeguards evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; mitigations = Documented; mitigations evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; reviewer = Documented; reviewer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; conditions = Documented; conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Activity scope = Documented; Activity scope evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Activity scope: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-010DP11 | Grievances Escalate overdue programme grievances through approved channels Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — grievances. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-011DP11 | Participation equity Target gaps in access to project benefits Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — participation equity. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-012DP11 | Change control Compare material scope-change alternatives before approval Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Retain the agreed baseline. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional retain the agreed baseline option: compare the documented Baseline scope, proposed change.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-013DP11 | Decision conditions Block affected work with unmet mandatory approval conditions Inputs and exampleDecision version; Decision version evidence reference; required approvals; required approvals evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference; completion evidence; completion evidence evidence reference; appointed authority; appointed authority evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — decision conditions. Decision version = Missing; Decision version evidence reference = ; required approvals = Documented; required approvals evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; conditions = Documented; conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; completion evidence = Documented; completion evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; appointed authority = Documented; appointed authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Decision version = Documented; Decision version evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Decision version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-014DP11 | Partner coordination Resolve dependency conflicts between implementing partners Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — partner coordination. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-015DP11 | Outcome evaluation Assess verified programme outcomes and attribution limits Inputs and exampleIntervention group households receiving the stated programme service within the same observation window before [%]; Intervention group households receiving the stated programme service within the same observation window after [%]; Comparison group households receiving the stated programme service within the same observation window before [%]; Comparison group households receiving the stated programme service within the same observation window after [%]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (percentage points) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — outcome evaluation. Intervention group households receiving the stated programme service within the same observation window before = 42 %; Intervention group households receiving the stated programme service within the same observation window after = 59 %; Comparison group households receiving the stated programme service within the same observation window before = 39 %; Comparison group households receiving the stated programme service within the same observation window after = 46 %; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Fictional measure: Households receiving the stated programme service within the same observation window / matching frame, method and before-after windows. Results: Difference in changes = 10 percentage points. Changed input. Change Intervention group households receiving the stated programme service within the same observation window before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 percentage points. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Intervention group households receiving the stated programme service within the same observation window before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. This named fictional indicator illustrates the calculation. Design evidence, adverse effects and attribution remain separate; a difference in changes does not establish causation. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP11-016DP11 | Risk financing Compare financial consequences of implementation scenarios Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Proposed; awaiting scope confirmation Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP11-017DP11 | Asset handover Identify assets lacking verified maintenance and ownership arrangements Inputs and exampleAsset ID; Asset ID evidence reference; acceptance; acceptance evidence reference; owner; owner evidence reference; maintenance plan; maintenance plan evidence reference; budget; budget evidence reference; training; training evidence reference; handover conditions; handover conditions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — asset handover. Asset ID = Missing; Asset ID evidence reference = ; acceptance = Documented; acceptance evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; owner = Documented; owner evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; maintenance plan = Documented; maintenance plan evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; budget = Documented; budget evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; training = Documented; training evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; handover conditions = Documented; handover conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Asset ID = Documented; Asset ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Asset ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-018DP11 | Learning and scaling Select interventions for further testing or scaling Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Continue a bounded pilot. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional continue a bounded pilot option: compare the documented Verified outcomes, costs.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-019DP11 | Evidence catalogue Correct incomplete references in reporting evidence packages Inputs and exampleEvidence ID; Evidence ID evidence reference; source version; source version evidence reference; period; period evidence reference; geography; geography evidence reference; license; license evidence reference; reviewer; reviewer evidence reference; lineage; lineage evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — evidence catalogue. Evidence ID = Missing; Evidence ID evidence reference = ; source version = Documented; source version evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; period = Documented; period evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; geography = Documented; geography evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; license = Documented; license evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; reviewer = Documented; reviewer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; lineage = Documented; lineage evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Evidence ID = Documented; Evidence ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Evidence ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP11-020DP11 | Project closure Resolve outstanding financial technical and safeguard obligations Inputs and exampleClosure checklist; Closure checklist evidence reference; contracts; contracts evidence reference; finances; finances evidence reference; assets; assets evidence reference; unresolved cases; unresolved cases evidence reference; outcome evidence; outcome evidence evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — project closure. Closure checklist = Missing; Closure checklist evidence reference = ; contracts = Documented; contracts evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; finances = Documented; finances evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; assets = Documented; assets evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; unresolved cases = Documented; unresolved cases evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; outcome evidence = Documented; outcome evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Closure checklist = Documented; Closure checklist evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Closure checklist: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-001DP12 | Ecosystem change Prioritize ecosystem types with comparable extent or condition decline Inputs and exampleEarlier mapped class area [ha]; Later mapped class area [ha]; Matched area leaving the class [ha]; Matched area entering the class [ha]; Same fixed analysis extent [ha]; Native class and mapping version; Earlier observation date; Later observation date Result: Net class-area change; Relative class-area change; Gross loss from class; Gross gain to class (ha; %; ha; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — ecosystem change. Earlier mapped class area = 100 ha; Later mapped class area = 90 ha; Matched area leaving the class = 18 ha; Matched area entering the class = 8 ha; Same fixed analysis extent = 200 ha; Native class and mapping version = Sample matching forest/land-use class; Earlier observation date = 2024-06-30; Later observation date = 2025-06-30. Results: Net class-area change = -10 ha; Relative class-area change = -10 %; Gross loss from class = 18 ha; Gross gain to class = 8 ha. Changed input. Change Later mapped class area = 91; Matched area entering the class = 9. Result: Net class-area change = -9 ha; Relative class-area change = -9 %; Gross loss from class = 18 ha; Gross gain to class = 9 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Earlier mapped class area: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Same boundary, definitions, observation basis and adequate map quality are required. Coverage changes and classification error are not proven land-use change. Example boundaries and transitions are fictional. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CHANGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-002DP12 | Soil-carbon monitoring Select comparable soil-carbon monitoring locations Inputs and exampleSoil organic carbon [%]; Fine-earth bulk-density basis [t/m³]; Sample depth [m]; Coarse-fragment volume fraction [%]; Sampling depth, design and density convention Result: Soil-carbon stock (t C/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — soil-carbon monitoring. Soil organic carbon = 1.8 %; Fine-earth bulk-density basis = 1.25 t/m³; Sample depth = 0.3 m; Coarse-fragment volume fraction = 12 %; Sampling depth, design and density convention = Sample matched depth and fine-earth convention. Results: Soil-carbon stock = 59.4 t C/ha. Changed input. Change Soil organic carbon = 1.818. Result: Soil-carbon stock = 59.994 t C/ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Soil organic carbon: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A carbon concentration is not a stock. Change comparisons require consistent depth/mass, sampling, density convention and uncertainty review. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Soil-carbon stock with volume correction Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change · Section 4.3.3.5.4, equation 4.3.3, printed page 4.106, PDF page 18 Institution publication - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change SOILCARBONImplementation: prototype Method source: S79 |
| DEC-DP12-003DP12 | Biodiversity evidence Improve surveys with insufficient sampling effort Inputs and exampleObserved distinct species [species]; Survey effort [hours]; Survey protocol and version; Survey season and taxonomic scope; All planned survey visits completed Result: Observed richness; Recorded effort (species; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — biodiversity evidence. Observed distinct species = 28 species; Survey effort = 18 hours; Survey protocol and version = Sample protocol1; Survey season and taxonomic scope = Sample matched season / taxon group; All planned survey visits completed = Yes. Results: Observed richness = 28 species; Recorded effort = 18 hours. Changed input. Change Observed distinct species = 29. Result: Observed richness = 29 species; Recorded effort = 18 hours. Review survey comparability. Missing input. Omit Observed distinct species: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Observed richness is not population size or occupancy. Comparable effort alone does not remove detection bias or establish a biodiversity trend. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BIODIVERSITYImplementation: prototype Method source: DD-GBIF |
| DEC-DP12-004DP12 | Forest-carbon estimates Select defensible evidence for forest-carbon assessment Inputs and exampleEarlier carbon density [t C/ha]; Later carbon density [t C/ha]; Same inventory area [ha]; Included pools and allometry references Result: Carbon stock change; Carbon-density change (t C; t C/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — forest-carbon estimates. Earlier carbon density = 100 t C/ha; Later carbon density = 90 t C/ha; Same inventory area = 85 ha; Included pools and allometry references = Sample matching biomass pools; source model required. Results: Carbon stock change = -850 t C; Carbon-density change = -10 t C/ha. Changed input. Change Earlier carbon density = 101. Result: Carbon stock change = -935 t C; Carbon-density change = -11 t C/ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Earlier carbon density: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Inventory plots, allometry and uncertainty remain required evidence. Stock change is not an issued carbon credit, additionality test or payable service. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Carbon stock-difference component Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change · Section 2.3.1.1, equation 2.8, stock-difference method Institution publication - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change CARBONImplementation: prototype Method source: S79 |
| DEC-DP12-005DP12 | Landscape restoration Compare landscape restoration opportunities Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Natural regeneration in degraded forest. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional natural regeneration in degraded forest option: compare the documented Degradation, tenure.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-006DP12 | Agroforestry design Compare locally suitable tree-crop combinations Inputs and exampleSpecies traits; Species traits evidence reference; crop needs; crop needs evidence reference; soil; soil evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; shade; shade evidence reference; farmer objectives; farmer objectives evidence reference; market access; market access evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — agroforestry design. Species traits = Missing; Species traits evidence reference = ; crop needs = Documented; crop needs evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; soil = Documented; soil evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rainfall = Documented; rainfall evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; shade = Documented; shade evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; farmer objectives = Documented; farmer objectives evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; market access = Documented; market access evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Species traits = Documented; Species traits evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Species traits: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-007DP12 | Research design Select study designs capable of answering intervention questions Inputs and exampleHypothesis; Hypothesis evidence reference; treatment; treatment evidence reference; comparison; comparison evidence reference; baseline; baseline evidence reference; sample size; sample size evidence reference; confounders; confounders evidence reference; outcomes; outcomes evidence reference Result: Study evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — research design. Hypothesis = Missing; Hypothesis evidence reference = ; treatment = Documented; treatment evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; comparison = Documented; comparison evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; baseline = Documented; baseline evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; sample size = Documented; sample size evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; confounders = Documented; confounders evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; outcomes = Documented; outcomes evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Study evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Hypothesis = Documented; Hypothesis evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Study evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Hypothesis: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP12-008DP12 | Sampling allocation Allocate field effort across environmental strata Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Equal effort across strata. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional equal effort across strata option: compare the documented Sampling frame, strata.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-009DP12 | Data harmonization Resolve incompatible ecological concepts before combining datasets Inputs and exampleSource variables; Source variables evidence reference; definitions; definitions evidence reference; units; units evidence reference; methods; methods evidence reference; taxonomic references; taxonomic references evidence reference; steward review; steward review evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — data harmonization. Source variables = Missing; Source variables evidence reference = ; definitions = Documented; definitions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; units = Documented; units evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; methods = Documented; methods evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; taxonomic references = Documented; taxonomic references evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; steward review = Documented; steward review evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Source variables = Documented; Source variables evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Source variables: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-010DP12 | Model validation Require independent validation of landscape models Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [m³/season]; Independently reproduced value [m³/season]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [m³/season]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (m³/season; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — model validation. Earlier/source value = 100 m³/season; Independently reproduced value = 90 m³/season; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable m³/season measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 m³/season; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -10 m³/season; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 m³/season; Relative change = -10.891 %. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-011DP12 | Hydrological evidence Assess whether land-management changes affect water outcomes Inputs and exampleTreatment Seasonal streamflow volume before [m³/season]; Treatment Seasonal streamflow volume after [m³/season]; Comparison Seasonal streamflow volume before [m³/season]; Comparison Seasonal streamflow volume after [m³/season]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (m³/season) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — hydrological evidence. Treatment Seasonal streamflow volume before = 42 m³/season; Treatment Seasonal streamflow volume after = 59 m³/season; Comparison Seasonal streamflow volume before = 39 m³/season; Comparison Seasonal streamflow volume after = 46 m³/season; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Seasonal streamflow volume /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 10 m³/season. Changed input. Change Treatment Seasonal streamflow volume before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 m³/season. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Seasonal streamflow volume before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP12-012DP12 | Ecosystem services Prepare separate physical service accounts Inputs and exampleOpening ecosystem extent [ha]; Extent additions [ha]; Extent reductions [ha]; Measured service flow in the period [m³/year]; Service definition and flow unit; Separate monetary valuation method/price year Result: Closing ecosystem extent; Physical service flow (ha; m³/year) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — ecosystem services. Opening ecosystem extent = 750 ha; Extent additions = 92 ha; Extent reductions = 48 ha; Measured service flow in the period = 120,000 m³/year; Service definition and flow unit = Fictional annual water-provisioning flow to the stated users / m³/year / same accounting boundary; Separate monetary valuation method/price year = Not provided. Results: Closing ecosystem extent = 794 ha; Physical service flow = 120,000 m³/year. Changed input. Change Opening ecosystem extent = 751. Result: Closing ecosystem extent = 795 ha; Physical service flow = 120,000 m³/year. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Opening ecosystem extent: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep extent, condition, physical service flows and monetary accounts distinct. A defensible valuation method, price year and accounting boundary are needed for monetary results. Ecosystem extent in hectares and annual water-provisioning flow in cubic metres are separate accounts. A measured flow does not identify its ecosystem contribution or assign a monetary value. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCOUNTImplementation: prototype Method source: S58 |
| DEC-DP12-013DP12 | Trade-offs Compare livelihood conservation and water-management alternatives Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Agroforestry livelihood support. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional agroforestry livelihood support option: compare the documented Options, ecological outcomes.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-014DP12 | Carbon uncertainty Prioritize measurements driving carbon-estimate uncertainty Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Additional soil-density measurements. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional additional soil-density measurements option: compare the documented Pool estimates, parameter uncertainty.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-015DP12 | Community knowledge Resolve conflicting scientific and community observations Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community knowledge. Original source value/definition = Study question: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Study question: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-016DP12 | Gender and inclusion Review whose knowledge and outcomes research represents Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [participants]; Distinct members of that frame covered [participants]; Frame members with unknown coverage [participants] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; participants; participants) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — gender and inclusion. Required eligible frame = 100 participants; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 participants; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 participants. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 participants; Unknown coverage = 5 participants. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 participants; Unknown coverage = 5 participants. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-017DP12 | Long-term monitoring Sustain observation coverage beyond initial field campaigns Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — long-term monitoring. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-018DP12 | Open science Determine which research outputs can be shared Inputs and exampleDataset rights; Dataset rights evidence reference; participant consent; participant consent evidence reference; sensitive species; sensitive species evidence reference; license; license evidence reference; publication approval; publication approval evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — open science. Dataset rights = Missing; Dataset rights evidence reference = ; participant consent = Documented; participant consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; sensitive species = Documented; sensitive species evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; license = Documented; license evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; publication approval = Documented; publication approval evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Dataset rights = Documented; Dataset rights evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Dataset rights: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-019DP12 | Knowledge products Prioritize evidence products requested by decision makers Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — knowledge products. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP12-020DP12 | Research translation Evaluate uptake and consequences of research recommendations Inputs and exampleTreatment Verified recommendation uptake before [%]; Treatment Verified recommendation uptake after [%]; Comparison Verified recommendation uptake before [%]; Comparison Verified recommendation uptake after [%]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (%) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — research translation. Treatment Verified recommendation uptake before = 42 %; Treatment Verified recommendation uptake after = 59 %; Comparison Verified recommendation uptake before = 39 %; Comparison Verified recommendation uptake after = 46 %; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Verified recommendation uptake /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 10 %. Changed input. Change Treatment Verified recommendation uptake before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 %. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Verified recommendation uptake before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP13-001DP13 | Field assignments Follow up assignments lacking accepted field evidence Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — field assignments. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-002DP13 | Monitoring coverage Schedule visits to unobserved monitoring sites Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [visits]; Distinct members of that frame covered [visits]; Frame members with unknown coverage [visits] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; visits; visits) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — monitoring coverage. Required eligible frame = 100 visits; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 visits; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 visits. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 visits; Unknown coverage = 5 visits. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 visits; Unknown coverage = 5 visits. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-003DP13 | Community cases Prioritize unresolved community cases by agreed urgency Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community cases. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-004DP13 | Spatial verification Resolve missing or conflicting locations of field activities Inputs and exampleMeasured separation between reported locations [m]; Reported source positional accuracy [m]; Reported comparison positional accuracy [m]; Coordinate reference and transformation evidence Result: Location separation (m) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — spatial verification. Measured separation between reported locations = 32 m; Reported source positional accuracy = 10 m; Reported comparison positional accuracy = 15 m; Coordinate reference and transformation evidence = Sample matching CRS; transformation check required. Results: Location separation = 32 m. Changed input. Change Measured separation between reported locations = 32.32. Result: Location separation = 32.32 m. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Measured separation between reported locations: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-005DP13 | Watershed plans Compare community priorities for sub-watershed actions Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Protect stream-bank vegetation. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional protect stream-bank vegetation option: compare the documented Sites, needs.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-006DP13 | Intervention scheduling Coordinate field works around seasonal and resource limits Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — intervention scheduling. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-007DP13 | Restoration follow-up Target visits to restoration cohorts with uncertain survival Inputs and exampleOriginal cohort [plants]; Known surviving original members [plants]; Known failed original members [plants]; Original members with unknown follow-up [plants]; Replacements in a separate cohort [plants] Result: Confirmed survival lower bound; Survival upper bound; Unknown follow-up (%; %; plants) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — restoration follow-up. Original cohort = 450 plants; Known surviving original members = 351 plants; Known failed original members = 70 plants; Original members with unknown follow-up = 29 plants; Replacements in a separate cohort = 18 plants. Results: Confirmed survival lower bound = 78 %; Survival upper bound = 84.444 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 plants. Changed input. Change Known surviving original members = 352; Known failed original members = 69. Result: Confirmed survival lower bound = 78.222 %; Survival upper bound = 84.667 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 plants. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SURVIVALImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-008DP13 | Conservation works Verify completed soil and water conservation treatments Inputs and exampleWork ID; Work ID evidence reference; design; design evidence reference; measured dimensions; measured dimensions evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; inspection; inspection evidence reference; acceptance conditions; acceptance conditions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — conservation works. Work ID = Missing; Work ID evidence reference = ; design = Documented; design evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; measured dimensions = Documented; measured dimensions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; location = Documented; location evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection = Documented; inspection evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; acceptance conditions = Documented; acceptance conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Work ID = Documented; Work ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Work ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-009DP13 | Water problems Refer local water-shortage evidence to responsible institutions Inputs and examplePlanned value [m³/day]; Observed value [m³/day] Result: Difference; Relative change (m³/day; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — water problems. Planned value = 100 m³/day; Observed value = 90 m³/day. Results: Difference = -10 m³/day; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Planned value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 m³/day; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-010DP13 | Farmer practice uptake Follow up adoption after field demonstrations Inputs and exampleDistinct original sub-watershed site in the stated cohort [cases]; Those original cohort members with documented review [cases]; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition [cases]; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — farmer practice uptake. Distinct original sub-watershed site in the stated cohort = 180 cases; Those original cohort members with documented review = 132 cases; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition = 96 cases; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown = 12 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct original sub-watershed site in the stated cohort = 181. Result: Verified completion share = 53.039 %; Not verified complete = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct original sub-watershed site in the stated cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-011DP13 | Local hazards Escalate verified hazard observations to competent authorities Inputs and exampleObservation; Observation evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; time; time evidence reference; photographs; photographs evidence reference; exposed assets; exposed assets evidence reference; escalation protocol; escalation protocol evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — local hazards. Observation = Missing; Observation evidence reference = ; location = Documented; location evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; time = Documented; time evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; photographs = Documented; photographs evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; exposed assets = Documented; exposed assets evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; escalation protocol = Documented; escalation protocol evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Observation = Documented; Observation evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Observation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-012DP13 | Team workload Redistribute assignments where field workload exceeds capacity Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [staff hours]; Rated capacity for that period [staff hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [staff hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (staff hours; staff hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — team workload. Demand in the selected period = 150 staff hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 staff hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 staff hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-013DP13 | Safeguard conditions Check safeguards before starting field interventions Inputs and exampleSite approval; Site approval evidence reference; consent; consent evidence reference; safeguards; safeguards evidence reference; unresolved conditions; unresolved conditions evidence reference; evidence; evidence evidence reference; responsible reviewer; responsible reviewer evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — safeguard conditions. Site approval = Missing; Site approval evidence reference = ; consent = Documented; consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; safeguards = Documented; safeguards evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; unresolved conditions = Documented; unresolved conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; evidence = Documented; evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; responsible reviewer = Documented; responsible reviewer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Site approval = Documented; Site approval evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Site approval: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-014DP13 | Equipment logistics Plan shared field equipment and supply availability Inputs and exampleField-instrument kits physically held [field-instrument kits]; Kits held for examination [field-instrument kits]; Unserviceable or retired kits; separate from held kits [field-instrument kits]; Usable kits already booked [field-instrument kits]; Additional kits required [field-instrument kits]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining serviceability window [days] Result: Uncommitted usable stock; Additional demand gap (field-instrument kits; field-instrument kits) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — equipment logistics. Field-instrument kits physically held = 12 field-instrument kits; Kits held for examination = 1 field-instrument kits; Unserviceable or retired kits; separate from held kits = 0 field-instrument kits; Usable kits already booked = 8 field-instrument kits; Additional kits required = 5 field-instrument kits; Supplier lead time = 14 days; Remaining serviceability window = 365 days. Results: Uncommitted usable stock = 3 field-instrument kits; Additional demand gap = 2 field-instrument kits. Changed input. Change Field-instrument kits physically held = 13. Result: Uncommitted usable stock = 4 field-instrument kits; Additional demand gap = 1 field-instrument kits. Review replenishment gap. Missing input. Omit Field-instrument kits physically held: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INVENTORYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-015DP13 | Community consultation Resolve objections to sub-watershed implementation plans Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community consultation. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-016DP13 | Progress exceptions Investigate deviations from agreed field work plans Inputs and exampleAgreed conservation work packages [work packages]; Matching packages with accepted completion evidence [work packages] Result: Difference; Relative change (work packages; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — progress exceptions. Agreed conservation work packages = 20 work packages; Matching packages with accepted completion evidence = 16 work packages. Results: Difference = -4 work packages; Relative change = -20 %. Changed input. Change Agreed conservation work packages = 21. Result: Difference = -5 work packages; Relative change = -23.81 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Agreed conservation work packages: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A work package must have the same agreed scope; counts do not combine unequal work quantities. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-017DP13 | Access routes Select feasible routes for field monitoring visits Inputs and exampleSupplied journey distance from a documented route survey [km]; Supplied journey duration; not calculated here [minutes]; Usable vehicle/team capacity [units]; Required capacity [units]; Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window Result: Estimated travel time; Capacity minus demand (minutes; units) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — access routes. 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. Results: Estimated travel time = 65 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Changed input. Change Supplied journey duration; not calculated here = 75. Result: Estimated travel time = 75 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Resolve access/capacity evidence. Missing input. Omit Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ROUTEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-018DP13 | Support duplication Review overlapping field support to the same participants Inputs and examplePermitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit Result: Overlapping days (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — support duplication. Permitted recipient/service reference = Laggala Pallegama — support duplication; 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. Results: Overlapping days = 61 days. Changed input. Change Other support period begins = 2025-01-01; Other support period ends = 2025-06-30. Result: Overlapping days = 181 days. Review possible overlap. Missing input. Omit Permitted recipient/service reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPEATImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-019DP13 | Field form quality Correct incomplete field records before review Inputs and exampleRecord ID; Record ID evidence reference; required fields; required fields evidence reference; units; units evidence reference; timestamps; timestamps evidence reference; source; source evidence reference; attachments; attachments evidence reference; validation; validation evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — field form quality. Record ID = Missing; Record ID evidence reference = ; required fields = Documented; required fields evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; units = Documented; units evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; timestamps = Documented; timestamps evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source = Documented; source evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; attachments = Documented; attachments evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; validation = Documented; validation evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Record ID = Documented; Record ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Record ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP13-020DP13 | Local outcomes Assess whether completed interventions improved local outcomes Inputs and exampleIntervention group households with the stated functioning soil-and-water conservation measure at follow-up before [%]; Intervention group households with the stated functioning soil-and-water conservation measure at follow-up after [%]; Comparison group households with the stated functioning soil-and-water conservation measure at follow-up before [%]; Comparison group households with the stated functioning soil-and-water conservation measure at follow-up after [%]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (percentage points) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — local outcomes. Intervention group households with the stated functioning soil-and-water conservation measure at follow-up before = 42 %; Intervention group households with the stated functioning soil-and-water conservation measure at follow-up after = 59 %; Comparison group households with the stated functioning soil-and-water conservation measure at follow-up before = 39 %; Comparison group households with the stated functioning soil-and-water conservation measure at follow-up after = 46 %; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Fictional measure: Households with the stated functioning soil-and-water conservation measure at follow-up / matching frame, method and before-after windows. Results: Difference in changes = 10 percentage points. Changed input. Change Intervention group households with the stated functioning soil-and-water conservation measure at follow-up before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 percentage points. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Intervention group households with the stated functioning soil-and-water conservation measure at follow-up before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. This named fictional indicator illustrates the calculation. Design evidence, adverse effects and attribution remain separate; a difference in changes does not establish causation. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP14-001DP14 | Boundary selection Select the authoritative survey edition for a case Inputs and exampleBoundary ID; Boundary ID evidence reference; legal source; legal source evidence reference; survey date; survey date evidence reference; scale; scale evidence reference; supersession; supersession evidence reference; intended use; intended use evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — boundary selection. Boundary ID = Missing; Boundary ID evidence reference = ; legal source = Documented; legal source evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; survey date = Documented; survey date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; scale = Documented; scale evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; supersession = Documented; supersession evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; intended use = Documented; intended use evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Boundary ID = Documented; Boundary ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Boundary ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-002DP14 | Parcel reconciliation Investigate differences in registered and surveyed parcel area Inputs and exampleOriginal source measurement [ha]; Independent comparison measurement [ha]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition Result: Difference; Relative change (ha; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — parcel reconciliation. Original source measurement = 100 ha; Independent comparison measurement = 90 ha; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable ha measure; same input scope. Results: Difference = -10 ha; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Original source measurement = 101. Result: Difference = -11 ha; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original source measurement: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-003DP14 | Terrain screening Identify terrain requiring detailed site survey Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — terrain screening. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-004DP14 | Field verification Prioritize features needing ground verification Inputs and exampleFeature ID; Feature ID evidence reference; source date; source date evidence reference; positional uncertainty; positional uncertainty evidence reference; reported mismatch; reported mismatch evidence reference; survey request; survey request evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — field verification. Feature ID = Missing; Feature ID evidence reference = ; source date = Documented; source date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; positional uncertainty = Documented; positional uncertainty evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; reported mismatch = Documented; reported mismatch evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; survey request = Documented; survey request evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Feature ID = Documented; Feature ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Feature ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-005DP14 | Cadastral backlog Prioritize pending cadastral survey requests Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — cadastral backlog. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-006DP14 | Control network Schedule geodetic control inspection and restoration Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — control network. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-007DP14 | Coordinate transformation Validate transformations before combining spatial datasets Inputs and exampleSupplied expected control residual [m]; Supplied independently reproduced residual [m]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [m]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (m; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — coordinate transformation. Supplied expected control residual = 0.12 m; Supplied independently reproduced residual = 0.13 m; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable m measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 m; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = 0.01 m; Relative change = 8.333 %. Changed input. Change Supplied expected control residual = 0.13. Result: Difference = 0 m; Relative change = 0 %. Difference within supplied tolerance. Missing input. Omit Supplied expected control residual: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits No coordinate transformation is performed. This compares supplied scalar control-check results only. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-008DP14 | Survey accuracy Refer surveys failing approved accuracy specifications Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [m]; Example lower comparison bound [m]; Example upper comparison bound [m]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (m) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — survey accuracy. Parameter and applicable use = Horizontal survey residual; Measured result = 0.12 m; Example lower comparison bound = 0 m; Example upper comparison bound = 0.1 m; Original and limit unit = m; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 0.12 m. Changed input. Change Measured result = 0.13. Result: Measured value = 0.13 m. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-009DP14 | Aerial acquisition Schedule aerial imagery for priority mapping gaps Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — aerial acquisition. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-010DP14 | Boundary disputes Support formal review of conflicting boundary evidence Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — boundary disputes. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-011DP14 | Topographic updates Prioritize map sheets with significant feature changes Inputs and exampleFeatures in the matching map-sheet frame [features]; Features with a documented reported change [features]; Features whose change status is unknown [features] Result: Reported changed-feature share; Features without a reported change; Unknown change status (%; features; features) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — topographic updates. Features in the matching map-sheet frame = 1,000 features; Features with a documented reported change = 75 features; Features whose change status is unknown = 20 features. Results: Reported changed-feature share = 7.5 %; Features without a reported change = 905 features; Unknown change status = 20 features. Changed input. Change Features in the matching map-sheet frame = 1,001. Result: Reported changed-feature share = 7.493 %; Features without a reported change = 906 features; Unknown change status = 20 features. Review the reported feature changes and survey evidence. Missing input. Omit Features in the matching map-sheet frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CHANGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-012DP14 | Survey permissions Check required access and survey approvals Inputs and exampleSurvey purpose; Survey purpose evidence reference; property access; property access evidence reference; permissions; permissions evidence reference; restrictions; restrictions evidence reference; expiry; expiry evidence reference; authority; authority evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — survey permissions. Survey purpose = Missing; Survey purpose evidence reference = ; property access = Documented; property access evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; permissions = Documented; permissions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; restrictions = Documented; restrictions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; expiry = Documented; expiry evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; authority = Documented; authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Survey purpose = Documented; Survey purpose evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Survey purpose: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-013DP14 | Elevation products Select elevation datasets fit for intended analysis Inputs and exampleResolution; Resolution evidence reference; vertical datum; vertical datum evidence reference; accuracy; accuracy evidence reference; acquisition date; acquisition date evidence reference; coverage; coverage evidence reference; intended scale; intended scale evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — elevation products. Resolution = Missing; Resolution evidence reference = ; vertical datum = Documented; vertical datum evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; accuracy = Documented; accuracy evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; acquisition date = Documented; acquisition date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; coverage = Documented; coverage evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; intended scale = Documented; intended scale evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Resolution = Documented; Resolution evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Resolution: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-014DP14 | Encroachment surveys Identify areas needing authoritative boundary re-establishment Inputs and exampleBoundary identity and edition; Boundary identity and edition evidence reference; Survey and legal source; Survey and legal source evidence reference; Reason boundary confidence is inadequate; Reason boundary confidence is inadequate evidence reference; Control/mark condition; Control/mark condition evidence reference; Conflicting source references; Conflicting source references evidence reference; Required survey determination; Required survey determination evidence reference; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — encroachment surveys. Boundary identity and edition = Missing; Boundary identity and edition evidence reference = ; Survey and legal source = Documented; Survey and legal source evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Reason boundary confidence is inadequate = Documented; Reason boundary confidence is inadequate evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Control/mark condition = Documented; Control/mark condition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Conflicting source references = Documented; Conflicting source references evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Required survey determination = Documented; Required survey determination evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Boundary identity and edition = Documented; Boundary identity and edition evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Boundary identity and edition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. A static reference image does not verify these supplied measurements or boundaries. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-015DP14 | Survey resources Balance crew instrument and travel requirements Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [crew days]; Rated capacity for that period [crew days]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [crew days] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (crew days; crew days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — survey resources. Demand in the selected period = 150 crew days; Rated capacity for that period = 180 crew days; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 crew days. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 crew days; Usable capacity = 135 crew days. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 crew days; Usable capacity = 135 crew days. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-016DP14 | Map delivery Track survey products through independent checking Inputs and exampleDistinct original survey case in the stated cohort [cases]; Those original cohort members with documented review [cases]; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition [cases]; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — map delivery. Distinct original survey case in the stated cohort = 180 cases; Those original cohort members with documented review = 132 cases; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition = 96 cases; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown = 12 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct original survey case in the stated cohort = 181. Result: Verified completion share = 53.039 %; Not verified complete = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct original survey case in the stated cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-017DP14 | Land information Resolve inconsistent parcel identifiers across institutions Inputs and exampleCadastral ID; Cadastral ID evidence reference; land-register ID; land-register ID evidence reference; geometry; geometry evidence reference; legal evidence; legal evidence evidence reference; source owner; source owner evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land information. Cadastral ID = Missing; Cadastral ID evidence reference = ; land-register ID = Documented; land-register ID evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; geometry = Documented; geometry evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; legal evidence = Documented; legal evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source owner = Documented; source owner evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Cadastral ID = Documented; Cadastral ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Cadastral ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-018DP14 | Survey cost Compare costs for equivalent survey work types Inputs and exampleLabour cost [LKR]; Material/input cost [LKR]; Other non-overlapping cost [LKR]; Kilometres of the same stated survey work class [km surveyed]; Equivalent survey work/terrain class Result: Cost per matching unit; Total cost (LKR/km surveyed; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — survey cost. Labour cost = 180,000 LKR; Material/input cost = 255,000 LKR; Other non-overlapping cost = 62,000 LKR; Kilometres of the same stated survey work class = 5.4 km surveyed; Equivalent survey work/terrain class = Fictional boundary-line survey / comparable terrain and specification. Results: Cost per matching unit = 92,037.037 LKR/km surveyed; Total cost = 497,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Labour cost = 180,001. Result: Cost per matching unit = 92,037.222 LKR/km surveyed; Total cost = 497,001 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Labour cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COSTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-019DP14 | Map distribution Clear delayed requests for permitted map products Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — map distribution. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP14-020DP14 | Historical integrity Retain superseded survey editions with traceable revisions Inputs and exampleCurrent survey edition; Current survey edition evidence reference; Superseded edition references; Superseded edition references evidence reference; Revision reason and effective version; Revision reason and effective version evidence reference; Preserved original location; Preserved original location evidence reference; Change history; Change history evidence reference; Retention and access rules; Retention and access rules evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — historical integrity. Current survey edition = Missing; Current survey edition evidence reference = ; Superseded edition references = Documented; Superseded edition references evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Revision reason and effective version = Documented; Revision reason and effective version evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Preserved original location = Documented; Preserved original location evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Change history = Documented; Change history evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Retention and access rules = Documented; Retention and access rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Current survey edition = Documented; Current survey edition evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Current survey edition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized survey professional and geospatial quality reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-001DP15 | Published services Prioritize unavailable GIS services by user need Inputs and exampleScheduled observation window [hours]; Union of qualifying outage intervals [hours]; Eligible service requests [requests]; Failed eligible requests [requests]; Measured response time [ms] Result: Time availability; Request success; Measured response time (%; %; ms) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — published services. Scheduled observation window = 168 hours; Union of qualifying outage intervals = 13 hours; Eligible service requests = 1,000 requests; Failed eligible requests = 40 requests; Measured response time = 800 ms. Results: Time availability = 92.262 %; Request success = 96 %; Measured response time = 800 ms. Changed input. Change Scheduled observation window = 169. Result: Time availability = 92.308 %; Request success = 96 %; Measured response time = 800 ms. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Scheduled observation window: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits State maintenance exclusions, operating window, probe, workload and service objective. Observed response time is not a p95 claim unless the percentile is actually measured. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RELIABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-002DP15 | Metadata currency Request updates for outdated source metadata Inputs and exampleExpected observations in the window [observations]; Distinct valid observations [observations]; Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval [days] Result: Completeness; Age of latest observation; Missing observations (%; days; observations) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — metadata currency. Expected observations in the window = 30 observations; Distinct valid observations = 24 observations; Latest valid observation = 2025-06-28; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Required observation interval = 1 days. Results: Completeness = 80 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 6 observations. Changed input. Change Expected observations in the window = 31. Result: Completeness = 77.419 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 7 observations. Check overdue observation. Missing input. Omit Expected observations in the window: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FRESHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-003DP15 | Semantic conflicts Resolve conflicting classifications between publishers Inputs and exampleSource class; Source class evidence reference; definition; definition evidence reference; units; units evidence reference; reference vocabulary; reference vocabulary evidence reference; mapping evidence; mapping evidence evidence reference; steward; steward evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — semantic conflicts. Source class = Missing; Source class evidence reference = ; definition = Documented; definition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; units = Documented; units evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; reference vocabulary = Documented; reference vocabulary evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; mapping evidence = Documented; mapping evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; steward = Documented; steward evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Source class = Documented; Source class evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Source class: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-004DP15 | Withdrawn rights Restrict products using withdrawn source permissions Inputs and exampleSource license; Source license evidence reference; derivative lineage; derivative lineage evidence reference; withdrawal date; withdrawal date evidence reference; audience; audience evidence reference; cached product IDs; cached product IDs evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — withdrawn rights. Source license = Missing; Source license evidence reference = ; derivative lineage = Documented; derivative lineage evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; withdrawal date = Documented; withdrawal date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; audience = Documented; audience evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; cached product IDs = Documented; cached product IDs evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Source license = Documented; Source license evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Source license: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-005DP15 | Service onboarding Check institutional agreements before publishing a source Inputs and exampleProvider identity; Provider identity evidence reference; exchange agreement; exchange agreement evidence reference; permission scope; permission scope evidence reference; classification; classification evidence reference; effective dates; effective dates evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service onboarding. Provider identity = Missing; Provider identity evidence reference = ; exchange agreement = Documented; exchange agreement evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; permission scope = Documented; permission scope evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; classification = Documented; classification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; effective dates = Documented; effective dates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Provider identity = Documented; Provider identity evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Provider identity: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-006DP15 | Coordinate standards Reject unverified spatial-reference transformations Inputs and exampleSupplied expected transformation residual [m]; Supplied independent control residual [m]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [m]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (m; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — coordinate standards. Supplied expected transformation residual = 0.12 m; Supplied independent control residual = 0.13 m; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable m measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 m; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = 0.01 m; Relative change = 8.333 %. Changed input. Change Supplied expected transformation residual = 0.13. Result: Difference = 0 m; Relative change = 0 %. Difference within supplied tolerance. Missing input. Omit Supplied expected transformation residual: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits No coordinate transformation is performed. A scalar comparison cannot replace the complete control-point and datum evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-007DP15 | National coverage Prioritize gaps in fundamental geospatial datasets Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [theme-area pairs]; Distinct members of that frame covered [theme-area pairs]; Frame members with unknown coverage [theme-area pairs] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; theme-area pairs; theme-area pairs) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — national coverage. Required eligible frame = 100 theme-area pairs; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 theme-area pairs; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 theme-area pairs. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 theme-area pairs; Unknown coverage = 5 theme-area pairs. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 theme-area pairs; Unknown coverage = 5 theme-area pairs. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-008DP15 | Geometry quality Route invalid or inconsistent geometries for correction Inputs and exampleFeature ID; Feature ID evidence reference; geometry validity; geometry validity evidence reference; topology rule; topology rule evidence reference; duplicates; duplicates evidence reference; source edition; source edition evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — geometry quality. Feature ID = Missing; Feature ID evidence reference = ; geometry validity = Documented; geometry validity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; topology rule = Documented; topology rule evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; duplicates = Documented; duplicates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source edition = Documented; source edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Feature ID = Documented; Feature ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Feature ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-009DP15 | Service performance Identify GIS endpoints missing approved response targets Inputs and exampleEndpoint/service identity; Endpoint/service identity evidence reference; Responsible source owner; Responsible source owner evidence reference; Approved response target and exact measure; Approved response target and exact measure evidence reference; Measurement window and percentile definition; Measurement window and percentile definition evidence reference; Target authority and version; Target authority and version evidence reference; Applicable effective period; Applicable effective period evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service performance. Endpoint/service identity = Missing; Endpoint/service identity evidence reference = ; Responsible source owner = Documented; Responsible source owner evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Approved response target and exact measure = Documented; Approved response target and exact measure evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Measurement window and percentile definition = Documented; Measurement window and percentile definition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Target authority and version = Documented; Target authority and version evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Applicable effective period = Documented; Applicable effective period evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Endpoint/service identity = Documented; Endpoint/service identity evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Endpoint/service identity: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RELIABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-010DP15 | Schema changes Review downstream effects of source schema revisions Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — schema changes. Original source value/definition = Schema versions: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Schema versions: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-011DP15 | Data lineage Identify products lacking traceable source versions Inputs and exampleProduct ID; Product ID evidence reference; source IDs; source IDs evidence reference; transformations; transformations evidence reference; edition dates; edition dates evidence reference; permissions; permissions evidence reference; hashes; hashes evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — data lineage. Product ID = Missing; Product ID evidence reference = ; source IDs = Documented; source IDs evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; transformations = Documented; transformations evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; edition dates = Documented; edition dates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; permissions = Documented; permissions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; hashes = Documented; hashes evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Product ID = Documented; Product ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Product ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-012DP15 | Duplicate catalogues Consolidate duplicate catalogue references without copying data Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — duplicate catalogues. Original source value/definition = Provider ID: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Provider ID: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-013DP15 | Sensitive layers Determine safe access and aggregation for restricted layers Inputs and exampleClassification; Classification evidence reference; coordinates; coordinates evidence reference; intended purpose; intended purpose evidence reference; rights; rights evidence reference; approved aggregation; approved aggregation evidence reference; audience; audience evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — sensitive layers. Classification = Missing; Classification evidence reference = ; coordinates = Documented; coordinates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; intended purpose = Documented; intended purpose evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rights = Documented; rights evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approved aggregation = Documented; approved aggregation evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; audience = Documented; audience evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Classification = Documented; Classification evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Classification: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-014DP15 | Interoperability Prioritize services failing documented exchange requirements Inputs and exampleService specification; Service specification evidence reference; supported formats; supported formats evidence reference; metadata; metadata evidence reference; coordinate system; coordinate system evidence reference; sample requests; sample requests evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — interoperability. Service specification = Missing; Service specification evidence reference = ; supported formats = Documented; supported formats evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; metadata = Documented; metadata evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; coordinate system = Documented; coordinate system evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; sample requests = Documented; sample requests evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Service specification = Documented; Service specification evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Service specification: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-015DP15 | Incident response Assign source-feed failures to accountable custodians Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — incident response. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-016DP15 | Update scheduling Coordinate shared-layer refreshes with consumers Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — update scheduling. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-017DP15 | Catalogue discovery Improve discovery of poorly described geospatial resources Inputs and exampleDataset title; Dataset title evidence reference; keywords; keywords evidence reference; geography; geography evidence reference; period; period evidence reference; entity definition; entity definition evidence reference; source owner; source owner evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — catalogue discovery. Dataset title = Missing; Dataset title evidence reference = ; keywords = Documented; keywords evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; geography = Documented; geography evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; period = Documented; period evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; entity definition = Documented; entity definition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source owner = Documented; source owner evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Dataset title = Documented; Dataset title evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Dataset title: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-018DP15 | Spatial joins Verify cross-agency joins before publishing combined analyses Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [matched records]; Independently reproduced value [matched records]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [matched records]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (matched records; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — spatial joins. Earlier/source value = 100 matched records; Independently reproduced value = 90 matched records; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable matched records measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 matched records; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -10 matched records; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 matched records; Relative change = -10.891 %. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-019DP15 | Usage requests Prioritize dataset requests using recorded service demand Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — usage requests. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP15-020DP15 | Disaster resilience Test recovery of essential catalogue and service metadata Inputs and exampleRecovery exercise reference; Recovery exercise reference evidence reference; Source version and restore point; Source version and restore point evidence reference; Restore verification report; Restore verification report evidence reference; Recovery objectives and version; Recovery objectives and version evidence reference; Integrity and dependency checks; Integrity and dependency checks evidence reference; Responsible reviewer and unresolved findings; Responsible reviewer and unresolved findings evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — disaster resilience. Recovery exercise reference = Missing; Recovery exercise reference evidence reference = ; Source version and restore point = Documented; Source version and restore point evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Restore verification report = Documented; Restore verification report evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Recovery objectives and version = Documented; Recovery objectives and version evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Integrity and dependency checks = Documented; Integrity and dependency checks evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Responsible reviewer and unresolved findings = Documented; Responsible reviewer and unresolved findings evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Recovery exercise reference = Documented; Recovery exercise reference evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Recovery exercise reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geospatial custodian, metadata steward and access/security reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RELIABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-001DP16 | Affected households Prioritize districts with verified disaster impacts Inputs and exampleHouseholds in the exposed event frame [households]; Households with reported verified impacts in this example [households]; Households whose impact status is unknown [households] Result: Reported affected-household share; Households without a recorded impact; Unknown impact status (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — affected households. 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. Results: Reported affected-household share = 65 %; Households without a recorded impact = 30 households; Unknown impact status = 5 households. Changed input. Change Households in the exposed event frame = 101. Result: Reported affected-household share = 64.356 %; Households without a recorded impact = 31 households; Unknown impact status = 5 households. Review the impact register and supporting assessments. Missing input. Omit Households in the exposed event frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-002DP16 | Damage and loss Direct sector assessments where losses are greatest Inputs and exampleDamaged asset quantity [asset units]; Repair/replacement cost per matching unit [LKR/unit]; Interrupted service/production flow value [LKR/period]; Price year and flow interruption period Result: Estimated asset damage; Interrupted flow value (LKR; LKR/period) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — damage and loss. 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. Results: Estimated asset damage = 1,800,000 LKR; Interrupted flow value = 250,000 LKR/period. Changed input. Change Damaged asset quantity = 13. Result: Estimated asset damage = 1,950,000 LKR; Interrupted flow value = 250,000 LKR/period. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Damaged asset quantity: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COSTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-003DP16 | Safe centres Address safe-centre capacity and accessibility gaps Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [places]; Rated capacity for that period [places]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [places] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (places; places) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — safe centres. Demand in the selected period = 150 places; Rated capacity for that period = 180 places; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 places. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 places; Usable capacity = 135 places. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 places; Usable capacity = 135 places. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-004DP16 | Recovery funding Target documented recovery needs lacking confirmed funding Inputs and exampleApproved financing need [LKR]; Confirmed commitments [LKR]; Funds actually disbursed [LKR]; Verified eligible expenditure [LKR] Result: Unfunded need; Committed but not disbursed; Disbursed but not spent (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — recovery funding. 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. Results: Unfunded need = 850,000 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Approved financing need = 3,500,001. Result: Unfunded need = 850,001 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Review unfunded need. Missing input. Omit Approved financing need: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep commitments, cash receipts, expenditure and verified physical outputs separate. Negative balances flag overcommitment or reconciliation; no automatic accounting adjustment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FUNDINGImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-005DP16 | Warning dissemination Identify communities missing authorized warnings Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — warning dissemination. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-006DP16 | Evacuation planning Compare feasible evacuation routes and shelter access Inputs and exampleSupplied journey distance from a documented route survey [km]; Supplied journey duration; not calculated here [minutes]; Usable vehicle/team capacity [units]; Required capacity [units]; Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window Result: Estimated travel time; Capacity minus demand (minutes; units) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — evacuation planning. 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. Results: Estimated travel time = 65 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Changed input. Change Supplied journey duration; not calculated here = 75. Result: Estimated travel time = 75 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Resolve access/capacity evidence. Missing input. Omit Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ROUTEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-007DP16 | Emergency resources Allocate response resources against assessed needs Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [staff hours]; Rated capacity for that period [staff hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [staff hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (staff hours; staff hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — emergency resources. Demand in the selected period = 150 staff hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 staff hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 staff hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-008DP16 | Relief distribution Review overlapping or missing relief deliveries Inputs and examplePermitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit; Planned matching relief packs for this record [packs]; Matching packs with documented receipt [packs] Result: Overlapping days; Planned packs not recorded received (days; packs) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — relief distribution. 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. Results: Overlapping days = 61 days; Planned packs not recorded received = 4 packs. Changed input. Change Other support period begins = 2025-01-01; Other support period ends = 2025-06-30. Result: Overlapping days = 181 days; Planned packs not recorded received = 4 packs. Review the documented delivery shortfall. Missing input. Omit Permitted recipient/service reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPEATImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-009DP16 | Relief stocks Prevent critical shortages in emergency stores Inputs and examplePhysical stock [packs]; Quarantined stock [packs]; Expired stock [packs]; Committed usable stock [packs]; Additional demand [packs]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days] Result: Uncommitted usable stock; Additional demand gap (packs; packs) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — relief stocks. 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. Results: Uncommitted usable stock = 310 packs; Additional demand gap = 190 packs. Changed input. Change Physical stock = 1,201. Result: Uncommitted usable stock = 311 packs; Additional demand gap = 189 packs. Review replenishment gap. Missing input. Omit Physical stock: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INVENTORYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-010DP16 | Preparedness drills Resolve failures identified during preparedness exercises Inputs and exampleExercise scenario; Exercise scenario evidence reference; required actions; required actions evidence reference; response times; response times evidence reference; observed failures; observed failures evidence reference; corrective owner; corrective owner evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — preparedness drills. Exercise scenario = Missing; Exercise scenario evidence reference = ; 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. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Exercise scenario = Documented; Exercise scenario evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Exercise scenario: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-011DP16 | Risk reduction Compare mitigation proposals for exposed communities Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Improve warning dissemination. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional improve warning dissemination option: compare the documented Hazards, exposure.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-012DP16 | Critical facilities Prioritize schools hospitals and utilities for risk assessment Inputs and exampleDistinct facilities in the matching assessed frame [facilities]; Those facilities reported within the source-defined area; counted once [facilities]; Boundary edition and spatial predicate; Hazard/constraint/source class and observation period; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Spatially matched share; Distinct matched receptors (%; facilities) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — critical facilities. 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. Results: Spatially matched share = 24 %; Distinct matched receptors = 18 facilities. Changed input. Change Distinct facilities in the matching assessed frame = 76. Result: Spatially matched share = 23.684 %; Distinct matched receptors = 18 facilities. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct facilities in the matching assessed frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-013DP16 | Rapid assessments Identify areas awaiting reliable rapid damage assessments Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [assessments]; Distinct members of that frame covered [assessments]; Frame members with unknown coverage [assessments] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; assessments; assessments) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — rapid assessments. Required eligible frame = 100 assessments; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 assessments; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 assessments. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 assessments; Unknown coverage = 5 assessments. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 assessments; Unknown coverage = 5 assessments. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-014DP16 | Response coordination Resolve incompatible assignments across response agencies Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — response coordination. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-015DP16 | Recovery progress Escalate delayed reconstruction and rehabilitation work Inputs and examplePlanned milestone/sowing date; Observed completion/sowing date Result: Calendar date difference (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — recovery progress. Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-06-01; Observed completion/sowing date = 2025-06-09. Results: Calendar date difference = 8 days. Changed input. Change Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-05-31. Result: Calendar date difference = 9 days. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned milestone/sowing date: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-016DP16 | Impact trends Review changing disaster impacts across comparable events Inputs and exampleComparable observation [affected households per 1000 exposed] Result: Observed value (affected households per 1000 exposed) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — impact trends. Comparable observation = 104 affected households per 1000 exposed. Results: Observed value = 104 affected households per 1000 exposed. Changed input. Change Comparable observation = 105. Result: Observed value = 105 affected households per 1000 exposed. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable observation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; mean = 111; sd = 7 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required TRENDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-017DP16 | Contingency plans Check whether local contingency plans remain usable Inputs and examplePlan edition; Plan edition evidence reference; hazard scenarios; hazard scenarios evidence reference; contacts; contacts evidence reference; resources; resources evidence reference; drills; drills evidence reference; approval dates; approval dates evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — contingency plans. Plan edition = Missing; Plan edition evidence reference = ; 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. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Plan edition = Documented; Plan edition evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Plan edition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-018DP16 | Public information Verify authority and validity before publishing alerts Inputs and exampleIssuing authority; Issuing authority evidence reference; warning version; warning version evidence reference; affected area; affected area evidence reference; expiry; expiry evidence reference; publication approval; publication approval evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — public information. Issuing authority = Missing; Issuing authority evidence reference = ; 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. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Issuing authority = Documented; Issuing authority evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Issuing authority: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP16-019DP16 | Response evaluation Assess response effectiveness and unintended consequences Inputs and exampleTreatment Verified response completion before [%]; Treatment Verified response completion after [%]; Comparison Verified response completion before [%]; Comparison Verified response completion after [%]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (%) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — response evaluation. 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. Results: Difference in changes = 10 %. Changed input. Change Treatment Verified response completion before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 %. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Verified response completion before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP16-020DP16 | Incident records Reconcile duplicate disaster incident reports Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — incident records. 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; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-001DP17 | Site clearance Refer proposed sites overlapping landslide hazard zones Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — site clearance. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-002DP17 | Hazard-map updates Prioritize zones with outdated or incomplete hazard evidence Inputs and exampleMap coverage; Map coverage evidence reference; edition date; edition date evidence reference; new incidents; new incidents evidence reference; terrain changes; terrain changes evidence reference; survey need; survey need evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — hazard-map updates. Map coverage = Missing; Map coverage evidence reference = ; edition date = Documented; edition date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; new incidents = Documented; new incidents evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; terrain changes = Documented; terrain changes evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; survey need = Documented; survey need evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Map coverage = Documented; Map coverage evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Map coverage: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-003DP17 | Asset exposure Prioritize exposed assets for site-specific investigation Inputs and exampleDistinct assets in the matching assessed frame [assets]; Those assets reported within the source-defined area; counted once [assets]; Boundary edition and spatial predicate; Hazard/constraint/source class and observation period; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Spatially matched share; Distinct matched receptors (%; assets) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — asset exposure. Distinct assets in the matching assessed frame = 75 assets; Those assets reported within the source-defined area; counted once = 18 assets; 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. Results: Spatially matched share = 24 %; Distinct matched receptors = 18 assets. Changed input. Change Distinct assets in the matching assessed frame = 76. Result: Spatially matched share = 23.684 %; Distinct matched receptors = 18 assets. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct assets in the matching assessed frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-004DP17 | Rainfall investigations Investigate rainfall patterns associated with landslides Inputs and exampleComparable observation [mm] Result: Observed value (mm) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — rainfall investigations. Comparable observation = 104 mm. Results: Observed value = 104 mm. Changed input. Change Comparable observation = 105. Result: Observed value = 105 mm. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable observation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; mean = 111; sd = 7 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required TRENDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-005DP17 | Slope inspections Escalate observed cracks movement and drainage defects Inputs and exampleSlope ID; Slope ID evidence reference; movement observations; movement observations evidence reference; cracks; cracks evidence reference; seepage; seepage evidence reference; dated inspection; dated inspection evidence reference; approved limits; approved limits evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — slope inspections. Slope ID = Missing; Slope ID evidence reference = ; movement observations = Documented; movement observations evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; cracks = Documented; cracks evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; seepage = Documented; seepage evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; dated inspection = Documented; dated inspection evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approved limits = Documented; approved limits evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Slope ID = Documented; Slope ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Slope ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-006DP17 | Monitoring systems Repair failed landslide-monitoring instruments Inputs and exampleExpected observations in the window [observations]; Distinct valid observations [observations]; Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval [days] Result: Completeness; Age of latest observation; Missing observations (%; days; observations) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — monitoring systems. Expected observations in the window = 30 observations; Distinct valid observations = 24 observations; Latest valid observation = 2025-06-28; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Required observation interval = 1 days. Results: Completeness = 80 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 6 observations. Changed input. Change Expected observations in the window = 31. Result: Completeness = 77.419 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 7 observations. Check overdue observation. Missing input. Omit Expected observations in the window: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FRESHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-007DP17 | Slope stabilization Compare engineering mitigation alternatives Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Engineered surface drainage. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional engineered surface drainage option: compare the documented Site investigation, failure mechanism.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-008DP17 | Relocation assessment Refer relocation alternatives for competent determination Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — relocation assessment. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-009DP17 | Construction conditions Verify compliance with site-clearance conditions Inputs and exampleClearance version; Clearance version evidence reference; condition checklist; condition checklist evidence reference; construction evidence; construction evidence evidence reference; inspection dates; inspection dates evidence reference; engineer; engineer evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — construction conditions. Clearance version = Missing; Clearance version evidence reference = ; condition checklist = Documented; condition checklist evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; construction evidence = Documented; construction evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection dates = Documented; inspection dates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; engineer = Documented; engineer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Clearance version = Documented; Clearance version evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Clearance version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-010DP17 | Geotechnical evidence Resolve conflicting ground-investigation results Inputs and exampleOriginal source measurement [mm]; Independent comparison measurement [mm]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition Result: Difference; Relative change (mm; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — geotechnical evidence. Original source measurement = 100 mm; Independent comparison measurement = 90 mm; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable mm measure; same input scope. Results: Difference = -10 mm; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Original source measurement = 101. Result: Difference = -11 mm; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original source measurement: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-011DP17 | Early warning evidence Prepare technical review of landslide-warning conditions Inputs and exampleRainfall; Rainfall evidence reference; soil moisture; soil moisture evidence reference; movement; movement evidence reference; approved thresholds; approved thresholds evidence reference; forecast; forecast evidence reference; duty authority; duty authority evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — early warning evidence. Rainfall = Missing; Rainfall evidence reference = ; soil moisture = Documented; soil moisture evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; movement = Documented; movement evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approved thresholds = Documented; approved thresholds evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; forecast = Documented; forecast evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; duty authority = Documented; duty authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Rainfall = Documented; Rainfall evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Rainfall: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-012DP17 | Laboratory workload Prioritize delayed geotechnical testing requests Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — laboratory workload. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-013DP17 | Road slopes Prioritize assessment of unstable road cuts Inputs and exampleRoad segment; Road segment evidence reference; slope condition; slope condition evidence reference; traffic exposure; traffic exposure evidence reference; drainage; drainage evidence reference; failure history; failure history evidence reference; access; access evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — road slopes. Road segment = Missing; Road segment evidence reference = ; slope condition = Documented; slope condition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; traffic exposure = Documented; traffic exposure evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; drainage = Documented; drainage evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; failure history = Documented; failure history evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; access = Documented; access evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Road segment = Documented; Road segment evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Road segment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-014DP17 | Post-event inspection Schedule investigations after reported slope failures Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — post-event inspection. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-015DP17 | Drainage remediation Compare options to reduce slope-related drainage problems Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Repair surface drains. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional repair surface drains option: compare the documented Seepage, runoff.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-016DP17 | Model validation Require validation of landslide susceptibility models Inputs and exampleSupplied expected model probability [probability]; Supplied independently reproduced probability [probability]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [probability]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (probability; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — model validation. Supplied expected model probability = 0.65 probability; Supplied independently reproduced probability = 0.62 probability; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable probability measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 probability; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -0.03 probability; Relative change = -4.615 %. Changed input. Change Supplied expected model probability = 0.66. Result: Difference = -0.04 probability; Relative change = -6.061 %. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Supplied expected model probability: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Scalar reproduction does not demonstrate model discrimination, calibration, transferability or site safety. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-017DP17 | Mitigation outcomes Evaluate stabilization performance after completion Inputs and exampleTreatment Measured slope displacement before [mm]; Treatment Measured slope displacement after [mm]; Comparison Measured slope displacement before [mm]; Comparison Measured slope displacement after [mm]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (mm) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — mitigation outcomes. Treatment Measured slope displacement before = 42 mm; Treatment Measured slope displacement after = 59 mm; Comparison Measured slope displacement before = 39 mm; Comparison Measured slope displacement after = 46 mm; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Measured slope displacement /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 10 mm. Changed input. Change Treatment Measured slope displacement before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 mm. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Measured slope displacement before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP17-018DP17 | Land-use advice Identify developments needing additional terrain investigation Inputs and exampleDevelopment footprint; Development footprint evidence reference; geology; geology evidence reference; slope; slope evidence reference; hydrology; hydrology evidence reference; hazard edition; hazard edition evidence reference; uncertainty; uncertainty evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land-use advice. Development footprint = Missing; Development footprint evidence reference = ; geology = Documented; geology evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; slope = Documented; slope evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; hydrology = Documented; hydrology evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; hazard edition = Documented; hazard edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; uncertainty = Documented; uncertainty evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Development footprint = Documented; Development footprint evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Development footprint: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-019DP17 | Community awareness Target exposed communities missing preparedness guidance Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community awareness. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP17-020DP17 | Case administration Clear incomplete landslide assessment applications Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — case administration. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-001DP18 | Water pollution Investigate water samples exceeding applicable limits Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [pH]; Example lower comparison bound [pH]; Example upper comparison bound [pH]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (pH) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — water pollution. Parameter and applicable use = Ambient water pH for selected use; Measured result = 7.4 pH; Example lower comparison bound = 6.5 pH; Example upper comparison bound = 8.5 pH; Original and limit unit = pH; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 7.4 pH. Changed input. Change Measured result = 7.474. Result: Measured value = 7.474 pH. Within example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-002DP18 | Sampling coverage Prioritize river stretches lacking recent samples Inputs and exampleRiver reaches with a required sampling schedule [river reaches]; Those reaches meeting that schedule [river reaches]; Reaches whose sampling coverage is unknown [river reaches] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; river reaches; river reaches) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — sampling coverage. River reaches with a required sampling schedule = 100 river reaches; Those reaches meeting that schedule = 65 river reaches; Reaches whose sampling coverage is unknown = 5 river reaches. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 river reaches; Unknown coverage = 5 river reaches. Changed input. Change River reaches with a required sampling schedule = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 river reaches; Unknown coverage = 5 river reaches. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit River reaches with a required sampling schedule: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. A single sample does not automatically cover a whole reach. Use the stated sampling schedule and matching assessment period. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-003DP18 | Mitigation compliance Follow up unverified environmental mitigation obligations Inputs and examplePermit or approval; Permit or approval evidence reference; condition; condition evidence reference; due date; due date evidence reference; inspection; inspection evidence reference; compliance evidence; compliance evidence evidence reference; owner; owner evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — mitigation compliance. Permit or approval = Missing; Permit or approval evidence reference = ; condition = Documented; condition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; due date = Documented; due date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection = Documented; inspection evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; compliance evidence = Documented; compliance evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; owner = Documented; owner evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Permit or approval = Documented; Permit or approval evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Permit or approval: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-004DP18 | Water anomalies Investigate unusual changes in water-quality observations Inputs and exampleComparable reference value [mg/L]; Later/comparison value [mg/L] Result: Difference; Relative change (mg/L; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — water anomalies. Comparable reference value = 100 mg/L; Later/comparison value = 90 mg/L. Results: Difference = -10 mg/L; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Comparable reference value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 mg/L; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable reference value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ANOMALYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-005DP18 | Environmental licensing Refer complete license applications to the competent authority Inputs and exampleActivity classification; Activity classification evidence reference; application; application evidence reference; inspection; inspection evidence reference; current rules; current rules evidence reference; required documents; required documents evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — environmental licensing. Activity classification = Missing; Activity classification evidence reference = ; application = Documented; application evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection = Documented; inspection evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current rules = Documented; current rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; required documents = Documented; required documents evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; conditions = Documented; conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Activity classification = Documented; Activity classification evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Activity classification: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S20, S21 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP18-006DP18 | License renewal Prioritize licenses nearing expiry with unresolved conditions Inputs and exampleLicence-review record opened; Recorded licence expiry date; Assessment date; Review case closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Days until licence expiry; Review-case age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — license renewal. Licence-review record opened = 2025-04-01; Recorded licence expiry date = 2025-07-14; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Review case closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Days until licence expiry = 14 days; Review-case age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Licence-review record opened = 2025-03-31. Result: Days until licence expiry = 14 days; Review-case age = 91 days. Review expiry date and unresolved conditions. Missing input. Omit Licence-review record opened: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-007DP18 | Environmental assessment Screen project proposals for required assessment pathways Inputs and exampleProject type; Project type evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; scale; scale evidence reference; sensitive areas; sensitive areas evidence reference; current criteria; current criteria evidence reference; authority; authority evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — environmental assessment. Project type = Missing; Project type evidence reference = ; location = Documented; location evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; scale = Documented; scale evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; sensitive areas = Documented; sensitive areas evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current criteria = Documented; current criteria evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; authority = Documented; authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Project type = Documented; Project type evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Project type: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S20, S21 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP18-008DP18 | Air pollution Investigate measured air-quality departures from applicable limits Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [µg/m³]; Example lower comparison bound [µg/m³]; Example upper comparison bound [µg/m³]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (µg/m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — air pollution. Parameter and applicable use = PM2.5 concentration over stated averaging period; Measured result = 38 µg/m³; Example lower comparison bound = 0 µg/m³; Example upper comparison bound = 35 µg/m³; Original and limit unit = µg/m³; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 38 µg/m³. Changed input. Change Measured result = 38.38. Result: Measured value = 38.38 µg/m³. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-009DP18 | Noise complaints Prioritize investigation of evidence-supported noise complaints Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [dB(A)]; Example lower comparison bound [dB(A)]; Example upper comparison bound [dB(A)]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (dB(A)) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — noise complaints. Parameter and applicable use = LAeq over stated interval and zone; Measured result = 62 dB(A); Example lower comparison bound = 0 dB(A); Example upper comparison bound = 60 dB(A); Original and limit unit = dB(A); Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 62 dB(A). Changed input. Change Measured result = 62.62. Result: Measured value = 62.62 dB(A). Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-010DP18 | Industrial effluent Target facilities with unresolved effluent-control failures Inputs and exampleFacility; Facility evidence reference; discharge; discharge evidence reference; permit conditions; permit conditions evidence reference; sample results; sample results evidence reference; treatment controls; treatment controls evidence reference; inspection; inspection evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — industrial effluent. Facility = Missing; Facility evidence reference = ; discharge = Documented; discharge evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; permit conditions = Documented; permit conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; sample results = Documented; sample results evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; treatment controls = Documented; treatment controls evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection = Documented; inspection evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Facility = Documented; Facility evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Facility: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-011DP18 | Waste management Compare waste collection treatment and disposal options Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Improve segregated collection. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional improve segregated collection option: compare the documented Waste type, quantity.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-012DP18 | Hazardous waste Review traceability of hazardous-waste transfers Inputs and exampleUpstream lot/source reference; Downstream lot/batch reference; Exact upstream source version; Recorded upstream issue Result: Broken or affected lineage (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — hazardous waste. Upstream lot/source reference = EXAMPLE-ROOT; Downstream lot/batch reference = 2025-BATCH-1; Exact upstream source version = Sample version1; Recorded upstream issue = Confirmed defect. Results: Broken or affected lineage = 1 items. Changed input. Change Recorded upstream issue = None. Result: Broken or affected lineage = 0 items. Review recorded lineage. Missing input. Omit Upstream lot/source reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Recorded lineage is not proof of product identity or recall authority. Preserve multi-source batches, transfers and versions; do not clear unlinked lots as safe. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-013DP18 | Wetland conservation Refer development pressure overlapping protected wetland evidence Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — wetland conservation. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-014DP18 | Public complaints Escalate unresolved pollution complaints Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — public complaints. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-015DP18 | Inspection targeting Schedule inspections by approved pollution-risk priorities Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — inspection targeting. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-016DP18 | Incident response Coordinate investigation of reported pollution incidents Inputs and exampleIncident; Incident evidence reference; pollutant; pollutant evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; exposed receptors; exposed receptors evidence reference; current controls; current controls evidence reference; response authority; response authority evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — incident response. Incident = Missing; Incident evidence reference = ; pollutant = Documented; pollutant evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; location = Documented; location evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; exposed receptors = Documented; exposed receptors evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current controls = Documented; current controls evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; response authority = Documented; response authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Incident = Documented; Incident evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Incident: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-017DP18 | Environmental education Target awareness programmes to documented compliance gaps Inputs and exampleFacilities with a documented awareness need [facilities]; Those facilities reached by the programme [facilities]; Facilities whose outreach status is unknown [facilities] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; facilities; facilities) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — environmental education. Facilities with a documented awareness need = 100 facilities; Those facilities reached by the programme = 65 facilities; Facilities whose outreach status is unknown = 5 facilities. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 facilities; Unknown coverage = 5 facilities. Changed input. Change Facilities with a documented awareness need = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 facilities; Unknown coverage = 5 facilities. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Facilities with a documented awareness need: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Awareness coverage is not a finding of environmental compliance or behaviour change. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-018DP18 | Restoration outcomes Assess environmental recovery after remedial works Inputs and exampleTreatment Selected water-quality parameter before [mg/L]; Treatment Selected water-quality parameter after [mg/L]; Comparison Selected water-quality parameter before [mg/L]; Comparison Selected water-quality parameter after [mg/L]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (mg/L) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — restoration outcomes. Treatment Selected water-quality parameter before = 42 mg/L; Treatment Selected water-quality parameter after = 59 mg/L; Comparison Selected water-quality parameter before = 39 mg/L; Comparison Selected water-quality parameter after = 46 mg/L; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Selected water-quality parameter /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 10 mg/L. Changed input. Change Treatment Selected water-quality parameter before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 mg/L. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Selected water-quality parameter before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP18-019DP18 | Laboratory evidence Review sample custody and analytical validity before action Inputs and exampleSample ID; Sample ID evidence reference; custody; custody evidence reference; holding time; holding time evidence reference; method; method evidence reference; calibration; calibration evidence reference; blanks; blanks evidence reference; accreditation; accreditation evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — laboratory evidence. Sample ID = Missing; Sample ID evidence reference = ; custody = Documented; custody evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; holding time = Documented; holding time evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; method = Documented; method evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; calibration = Documented; calibration evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; blanks = Documented; blanks evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; accreditation = Documented; accreditation evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Sample ID = Documented; Sample ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Sample ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP18-020DP18 | Environmental records Harmonize classifications without altering source meanings Inputs and exampleSource activity labels; Source activity labels evidence reference; current reference list; current reference list evidence reference; definition; definition evidence reference; edition; edition evidence reference; steward review; steward review evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — environmental records. Source activity labels = Missing; Source activity labels evidence reference = ; current reference list = Documented; current reference list evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; definition = Documented; definition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; edition = Documented; edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; steward review = Documented; steward review evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Source activity labels = Documented; Source activity labels evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Source activity labels: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-001DP19 | Survey coverage Improve comparable biodiversity surveys in protected areas Inputs and exampleObserved distinct species [species]; Survey effort [hours]; Survey protocol and version; Survey season and taxonomic scope; All planned survey visits completed Result: Observed richness; Recorded effort (species; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — survey coverage. Observed distinct species = 28 species; Survey effort = 18 hours; Survey protocol and version = Sample protocol1; Survey season and taxonomic scope = Sample matched season / taxon group; All planned survey visits completed = Yes. Results: Observed richness = 28 species; Recorded effort = 18 hours. Changed input. Change Observed distinct species = 29. Result: Observed richness = 29 species; Recorded effort = 18 hours. Review survey comparability. Missing input. Omit Observed distinct species: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Observed richness is not population size or occupancy. Comparable effort alone does not remove detection bias or establish a biodiversity trend. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BIODIVERSITYImplementation: prototype Method source: DD-GBIF |
| DEC-DP19-002DP19 | Wildlife incidents Prioritize unresolved wildlife conflict and rescue cases Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — wildlife incidents. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-003DP19 | Habitat exposure Identify threatened-species habitats requiring protection review Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — habitat exposure. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-004DP19 | Threat reduction Refer candidate conservation actions for specialist threat assessment Inputs and exampleSpecies range; Species range evidence reference; threats; threats evidence reference; action feasibility; action feasibility evidence reference; threat reduction evidence; threat reduction evidence evidence reference; uncertainty; uncertainty evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — threat reduction. Species range = Missing; Species range evidence reference = ; threats = Documented; threats evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; action feasibility = Documented; action feasibility evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; threat reduction evidence = Documented; threat reduction evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; uncertainty = Documented; uncertainty evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Species range = Documented; Species range evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Species range: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required STARImplementation: prototype Method source: S71 |
| DEC-DP19-005DP19 | Human-elephant conflict Compare locally evidenced coexistence interventions Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Maintain an existing community fence. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional maintain an existing community fence option: compare the documented Incident history, elephant movement.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-006DP19 | Fence maintenance Prioritize defects in approved protective fences Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — fence maintenance. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-007DP19 | Wildlife corridors Review proposed activities affecting habitat connectivity Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — wildlife corridors. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Reported overlap is a referral screen. It does not measure functional connectivity or species movement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-008DP19 | Poaching response Assign verified illegal-activity observations for authorized investigation Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — poaching response. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-009DP19 | Patrol coverage Compare patrol routes for permitted priority areas Inputs and exampleSupplied journey distance from a documented route survey [km]; Supplied journey duration; not calculated here [minutes]; Usable vehicle/team capacity [units]; Required capacity [units]; Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window Result: Estimated travel time; Capacity minus demand (minutes; units) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — patrol coverage. 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. Results: Estimated travel time = 65 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Changed input. Change Supplied journey duration; not calculated here = 75. Result: Estimated travel time = 75 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Resolve access/capacity evidence. Missing input. Omit Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ROUTEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-010DP19 | Invasive species Select invasive-species management priorities Inputs and exampleSpecies; Species evidence reference; occupied area; occupied area evidence reference; spread; spread evidence reference; ecological impact; ecological impact evidence reference; treatment options; treatment options evidence reference; uncertainty; uncertainty evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — invasive species. Species = Missing; Species evidence reference = ; occupied area = Documented; occupied area evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; spread = Documented; spread evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; ecological impact = Documented; ecological impact evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; treatment options = Documented; treatment options evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; uncertainty = Documented; uncertainty evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Species = Documented; Species evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Species: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-011DP19 | Visitor management Review visitor pressure against approved protected-area capacity Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [visitors/day]; Rated capacity for that period [visitors/day]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [visitors/day] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (visitors/day; visitors/day) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — visitor management. Demand in the selected period = 150 visitors/day; Rated capacity for that period = 180 visitors/day; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 visitors/day. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 visitors/day; Usable capacity = 135 visitors/day. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 visitors/day; Usable capacity = 135 visitors/day. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-012DP19 | Research permissions Check research proposals against current permit requirements Inputs and exampleResearch proposal; Research proposal evidence reference; species; species evidence reference; methods; methods evidence reference; site; site evidence reference; ethics; ethics evidence reference; requested collections; requested collections evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — research permissions. Research proposal = Missing; Research proposal evidence reference = ; species = Documented; species evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; methods = Documented; methods evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; site = Documented; site evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; ethics = Documented; ethics evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; requested collections = Documented; requested collections evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; conditions = Documented; conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Research proposal = Documented; Research proposal evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Research proposal: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S22, S23, S45 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP19-013DP19 | Sensitive information Determine safe release of wildlife location data Inputs and exampleSpecies sensitivity; Species sensitivity evidence reference; coordinates; coordinates evidence reference; purpose; purpose evidence reference; rights; rights evidence reference; aggregation policy; aggregation policy evidence reference; approval; approval evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — sensitive information. Species sensitivity = Missing; Species sensitivity evidence reference = ; coordinates = Documented; coordinates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; purpose = Documented; purpose evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rights = Documented; rights evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; aggregation policy = Documented; aggregation policy evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approval = Documented; approval evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Species sensitivity = Documented; Species sensitivity evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Species sensitivity: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-014DP19 | Habitat restoration Compare restoration actions for degraded wildlife habitats Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Restore native vegetation. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional restore native vegetation option: compare the documented Habitat condition, native species.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-015DP19 | Population monitoring Review population trends using comparable survey effort Inputs and exampleRecorded encounters of the stated species [encounters]; Survey effort [hours]; Survey protocol and version; Survey season and taxonomic scope; All planned survey visits completed; Species and count definition Result: Observed encounter rate; Recorded effort; Recorded encounters (encounters/hour; hours; encounters) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — population monitoring. Recorded encounters of the stated species = 28 encounters; Survey effort = 18 hours; Survey protocol and version = Sample protocol1; Survey season and taxonomic scope = Sample matched season / taxon group; All planned survey visits completed = Yes; Species and count definition = Sambar deer — fictional standardized encounter count. Results: Observed encounter rate = 1.556 encounters/hour; Recorded effort = 18 hours; Recorded encounters = 28 encounters. Changed input. Change Recorded encounters of the stated species = 29. Result: Observed encounter rate = 1.611 encounters/hour; Recorded effort = 18 hours; Recorded encounters = 29 encounters. Review effort, detection and count comparability. Missing input. Omit Recorded encounters of the stated species: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Observed richness is not population size or occupancy. Comparable effort alone does not remove detection bias or establish a biodiversity trend. Repeated sightings may include the same individual. Detection, effort and protocol changes can alter this index without a population change. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BIODIVERSITYImplementation: prototype Method source: DD-GBIF |
| DEC-DP19-016DP19 | Wildlife health Refer unusual mortality or illness clusters to specialists Inputs and exampleComparable reported mortality/illness cases [cases]; Reported cases in the selected comparable window [cases] Result: Difference; Relative change (cases; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — wildlife health. Comparable reported mortality/illness cases = 2 cases; Reported cases in the selected comparable window = 7 cases. Results: Difference = 5 cases; Relative change = 250 %. Changed input. Change Comparable reported mortality/illness cases = 3. Result: Difference = 4 cases; Relative change = 133.333 %. Refer the increased reports; no outbreak or spatial cluster is established. Missing input. Omit Comparable reported mortality/illness cases: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ANOMALYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-017DP19 | Rescue capacity Allocate licensed rescue resources against current demand Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [team hours]; Rated capacity for that period [team hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [team hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (team hours; team hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — rescue capacity. Demand in the selected period = 150 team hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 team hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 team hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 team hours; Usable capacity = 135 team hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 team hours; Usable capacity = 135 team hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-018DP19 | Community outreach Target conflict-affected communities lacking support Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community outreach. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP19-019DP19 | Conservation effectiveness Evaluate conservation outcomes and adverse effects Inputs and exampleIntervention group native vegetation cover in matched habitat-monitoring plots before [%]; Intervention group native vegetation cover in matched habitat-monitoring plots after [%]; Comparison group native vegetation cover in matched habitat-monitoring plots before [%]; Comparison group native vegetation cover in matched habitat-monitoring plots after [%]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (percentage points) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — conservation effectiveness. Intervention group native vegetation cover in matched habitat-monitoring plots before = 42 %; Intervention group native vegetation cover in matched habitat-monitoring plots after = 59 %; Comparison group native vegetation cover in matched habitat-monitoring plots before = 39 %; Comparison group native vegetation cover in matched habitat-monitoring plots after = 46 %; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Fictional measure: Native vegetation cover in matched habitat-monitoring plots / matching frame, method and before-after windows. Results: Difference in changes = 10 percentage points. Changed input. Change Intervention group native vegetation cover in matched habitat-monitoring plots before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 percentage points. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Intervention group native vegetation cover in matched habitat-monitoring plots before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. This named fictional indicator illustrates the calculation. Design evidence, adverse effects and attribution remain separate; a difference in changes does not establish causation. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP19-020DP19 | Protected-area records Resolve conflicting protected-area and habitat labels Inputs and exampleBoundary source; Boundary source evidence reference; legal edition; legal edition evidence reference; area name; area name evidence reference; habitat classification; habitat classification evidence reference; custodian; custodian evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — protected-area records. Boundary source = Missing; Boundary source evidence reference = ; legal edition = Documented; legal edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; area name = Documented; area name evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; habitat classification = Documented; habitat classification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; custodian = Documented; custodian evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Boundary source = Documented; Boundary source evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Boundary source: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-001DP20 | Agricultural patterns Identify crop variety and irrigation patterns needing analysis Inputs and exampleFinal design weight [weight]; Recorded 0/1 indicator under that exact definition [0 or1]; Stratum and primary sampling unit; Exact binary indicator and reference period Result: Observed variable (0 or1) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — agricultural patterns. Final design weight = 2 weight; Recorded 0/1 indicator under that exact definition = 1 0 or1; Stratum and primary sampling unit = Fictional sampling stratum / Laggala Pallegama cluster; Exact binary indicator and reference period = Fictional indicator: Bg 300 paddy on an irrigated plot in the stated reference season; 1 = meets definition, 0 = does not. Results: Observed variable = 1 0 or1. Changed input. Change Final design weight = 2.02. Result: Observed variable = 1 0 or1. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Final design weight: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; weightTotal = 10; percent = 70 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Retain sampling frame, strata, clusters, nonresponse and calibration. The prototype does not invent complex-design variance, confidence intervals or small-area precision. These fictional binary observations demonstrate design weighting. Do not pool changed definitions, population frames or reference periods; no official rate or design variance is produced. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Weighted estimation component United Nations Statistics Division · Chapter 9, paragraphs 38 and 39, printed page 9-9, PDF page 417; Chapter 8 weighting Institution publication - United Nations Statistics Division SURVEYImplementation: prototype Method source: S91 |
| DEC-DP20-002DP20 | Poverty reporting Select defensible geographic poverty and income comparisons Inputs and exampleFinal design weight [weight]; Observed variable [LKR/household]; Stratum and primary sampling unit Result: Observed variable (LKR/household) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — poverty reporting. Final design weight = 2 weight; Observed variable = 68,000 LKR/household; Stratum and primary sampling unit = Fictional sampling stratum / Laggala Pallegama cluster. Results: Observed variable = 68,000 LKR/household. Changed input. Change Final design weight = 2.02. Result: Observed variable = 68,000 LKR/household. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Final design weight: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; weightTotal = 10; total = 787,000; mean = 78,700 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Retain sampling frame, strata, clusters, nonresponse and calibration. The prototype does not invent complex-design variance, confidence intervals or small-area precision. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Weighted estimation component United Nations Statistics Division · Chapter 9, paragraphs 38 and 39, printed page 9-9, PDF page 417; Chapter 8 weighting Institution publication - United Nations Statistics Division SURVEYImplementation: prototype Method source: S91 |
| DEC-DP20-003DP20 | Small-area reporting Determine whether estimates support district or divisional reporting Inputs and exampleResponding sample units [selected units]; Design-weighted estimate [LKR/household/month]; Design-based standard error [LKR/household/month]; Example maximum relative standard error [%]; Variance method, strata and cluster reference Result: Relative standard error (%) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — small-area reporting. Responding sample units = 120 selected units; Design-weighted estimate = 78,700 LKR/household/month; Design-based standard error = 12,592 LKR/household/month; Example maximum relative standard error = 20 %; Variance method, strata and cluster reference = Not provided. Results: Relative standard error = 16 %. Changed input. Change Design-based standard error = 12,593. Result: Relative standard error = 16.001 %. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Responding sample units: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Retain sampling frame, strata, clusters, nonresponse and calibration. The prototype does not invent complex-design variance, confidence intervals or small-area precision. The estimate and standard error are fictional monthly household-income statistics. The 20% review criterion is illustrative; sample count alone does not supply a design-based standard error. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SURVEYImplementation: prototype Method source: S91 |
| DEC-DP20-004DP20 | Statistical revisions Identify publications affected by revised statistical series Inputs and exampleStatistical series and definition; Superseded series version; Current replacement version; Dependent publication or table reference; Series version used in that publication; Publication revision state; Dependency or revision-check reference Result: Publications needing revision review (publications) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. District population-profile scenario. Statistical series and definition = Fictional annual population-estimate series; Superseded series version = Population series / version 1; Current replacement version = Population series / version 2; Dependent publication or table reference = District population-profile scenario; Series version used in that publication = Population series / version 1; Publication revision state = Not updated; Dependency or revision-check reference = Fictional source-reference register / entry 1. Results: Publications needing revision review = 1 publications. Changed input. Change Series version used in that publication = Population series / version 2; Publication revision state = Updated with evidence. Result: Publications needing revision review = 0 publications. Retain the documented revision evidence. Missing input. Omit Statistical series and definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Only documented dependency records are checked. This does not discover unlisted publications or amend a published statistical estimate. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CHANGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-005DP20 | Survey design Compare survey designs against precision and cost requirements Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Stratified household survey. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional stratified household survey option: compare the documented Sampling frame, strata.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-006DP20 | Nonresponse Target follow-up where survey response is incomplete Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [selected units]; Distinct members of that frame covered [selected units]; Frame members with unknown coverage [selected units] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; selected units; selected units) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — nonresponse. Required eligible frame = 100 selected units; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 selected units; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 selected units. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 selected units; Unknown coverage = 5 selected units. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 selected units; Unknown coverage = 5 selected units. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-007DP20 | Frame quality Resolve duplicate or missing units in statistical frames Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — frame quality. Original source value/definition = Frame ID: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Frame ID: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-008DP20 | Questionnaire quality Correct inconsistent responses before statistical acceptance Inputs and exampleQuestionnaire version; Questionnaire version evidence reference; validation rules; validation rules evidence reference; responses; responses evidence reference; enumerator queries; enumerator queries evidence reference; correction evidence; correction evidence evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — questionnaire quality. Questionnaire version = Missing; Questionnaire version evidence reference = ; validation rules = Documented; validation rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; responses = Documented; responses evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; enumerator queries = Documented; enumerator queries evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; correction evidence = Documented; correction evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Questionnaire version = Documented; Questionnaire version evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Questionnaire version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-009DP20 | Field deployment Allocate enumerators to achieve survey coverage Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [enumerator days]; Rated capacity for that period [enumerator days]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [enumerator days] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (enumerator days; enumerator days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — field deployment. Demand in the selected period = 150 enumerator days; Rated capacity for that period = 180 enumerator days; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 enumerator days. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 enumerator days; Usable capacity = 135 enumerator days. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 enumerator days; Usable capacity = 135 enumerator days. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-010DP20 | Confidentiality Review disclosure risk before publishing statistical tables Inputs and exampleCell counts; Cell counts evidence reference; sensitive variables; sensitive variables evidence reference; geography; geography evidence reference; approved suppression rules; approved suppression rules evidence reference; release authority; release authority evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — confidentiality. Cell counts = Missing; Cell counts evidence reference = ; sensitive variables = Documented; sensitive variables evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; geography = Documented; geography evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approved suppression rules = Documented; approved suppression rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; release authority = Documented; release authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Cell counts = Documented; Cell counts evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Cell counts: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-011DP20 | Method comparability Determine whether series can be compared across revisions Inputs and exampleDefinitions; Definitions evidence reference; questionnaire editions; questionnaire editions evidence reference; sample design; sample design evidence reference; weights; weights evidence reference; units; units evidence reference; reference periods; reference periods evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — method comparability. Definitions = Missing; Definitions evidence reference = ; questionnaire editions = Documented; questionnaire editions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; sample design = Documented; sample design evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; weights = Documented; weights evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; units = Documented; units evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; reference periods = Documented; reference periods evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Definitions = Documented; Definitions evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Definitions: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-012DP20 | Release scheduling Prioritize delayed statistical releases and dependencies Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — release scheduling. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-013DP20 | Crop estimates Reconcile crop area yield and production estimates Inputs and exampleFinal design weight [weight]; Observed harvested area [ha]; Observed harvested production [kg]; Stratum / cluster Result: Observed holding yield (kg/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — crop estimates. Final design weight = 2 weight; Observed harvested area = 1 ha; Observed harvested production = 3,000 kg; Stratum / cluster = Fictional sampling stratum / Laggala Pallegama cluster. Results: Observed holding yield = 3,000 kg/ha. Changed input. Change Final design weight = 2.02. Result: Observed holding yield = 3,000 kg/ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Final design weight: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; weightTotal = 10; production = 116,000; area = 28; yield = 4,142.857 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Retain sampling frame, strata, clusters, nonresponse and calibration. The prototype does not invent complex-design variance, confidence intervals or small-area precision. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Weighted estimation component United Nations Statistics Division · Chapter 9, paragraphs 38 and 39, printed page 9-9, PDF page 417; Chapter 8 weighting Institution publication - United Nations Statistics Division SURVEYImplementation: prototype Method source: S91 |
| DEC-DP20-014DP20 | Price statistics Investigate unusual observations before index compilation Inputs and exampleComparable reference value [LKR]; Later/comparison value [LKR] Result: Difference; Relative change (LKR; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — price statistics. Comparable reference value = 100 LKR; Later/comparison value = 90 LKR. Results: Difference = -10 LKR; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Comparable reference value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 LKR; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable reference value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ANOMALYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-015DP20 | Labour statistics Review geographic differences using comparable labour definitions Inputs and exampleFinal design weight [weight]; Recorded 0/1 indicator under that exact definition [0 or1]; Stratum and primary sampling unit; Exact binary indicator and reference period Result: Observed variable (0 or1) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — labour statistics. Final design weight = 2 weight; Recorded 0/1 indicator under that exact definition = 1 0 or1; Stratum and primary sampling unit = Fictional sampling stratum / Laggala Pallegama cluster; Exact binary indicator and reference period = Fictional indicator: Employed person under the same stated reference-week definition; 1 = meets definition, 0 = does not. Results: Observed variable = 1 0 or1. Changed input. Change Final design weight = 2.02. Result: Observed variable = 1 0 or1. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Final design weight: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; weightTotal = 10; percent = 70 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Retain sampling frame, strata, clusters, nonresponse and calibration. The prototype does not invent complex-design variance, confidence intervals or small-area precision. These fictional binary observations demonstrate design weighting. Do not pool changed definitions, population frames or reference periods; no official rate or design variance is produced. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Weighted estimation component United Nations Statistics Division · Chapter 9, paragraphs 38 and 39, printed page 9-9, PDF page 417; Chapter 8 weighting Institution publication - United Nations Statistics Division SURVEYImplementation: prototype Method source: S91 |
| DEC-DP20-016DP20 | Demographic change Identify population changes requiring denominator updates Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [people]; Later/comparison value [people] Result: Difference; Relative change (people; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — demographic change. Earlier/source value = 100 people; Later/comparison value = 90 people. Results: Difference = -10 people; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 people; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CHANGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-017DP20 | Administrative sources Assess administrative datasets before statistical reuse Inputs and exampleCoverage; Coverage evidence reference; definitions; definitions evidence reference; identifiers; identifiers evidence reference; update schedule; update schedule evidence reference; quality; quality evidence reference; permitted purpose; permitted purpose evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — administrative sources. Coverage = Missing; Coverage evidence reference = ; definitions = Documented; definitions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; identifiers = Documented; identifiers evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; update schedule = Documented; update schedule evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; quality = Documented; quality evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; permitted purpose = Documented; permitted purpose evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Coverage = Documented; Coverage evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Coverage: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-018DP20 | Data access services Prioritize permitted requests for statistical extracts Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — data access services. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-019DP20 | Reproducible estimates Independently reproduce published estimates and revisions Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [people]; Independently reproduced value [people]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [people]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (people; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — reproducible estimates. Earlier/source value = 100 people; Independently reproduced value = 90 people; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable people measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0 people; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -10 people; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 people; Relative change = -10.891 %. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP20-020DP20 | Classification maintenance Resolve unmapped economic agricultural and geographic codes Inputs and exampleSource code; Source code evidence reference; reference classification; reference classification evidence reference; validity dates; validity dates evidence reference; definitions; definitions evidence reference; crosswalk review; crosswalk review evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — classification maintenance. Source code = Missing; Source code evidence reference = ; reference classification = Documented; reference classification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; validity dates = Documented; validity dates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; definitions = Documented; definitions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; crosswalk review = Documented; crosswalk review evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Source code = Documented; Source code evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Source code: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Survey statistician, subject-matter statistician and disclosure reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-001DP21 | Groundwater depletion Investigate wells showing sustained drawdown Inputs and exampleGroundwater head relative to the stated datum [m]; Datum, pumping state and measurement convention Result: Observed value (m) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — groundwater depletion. Groundwater head relative to the stated datum = 100.9 m; Datum, pumping state and measurement convention = Sample common head datum; static measurement. Results: Observed value = 100.9 m. Changed input. Change Groundwater head relative to the stated datum = 101.9. Result: Observed value = 101.9 m. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Groundwater head relative to the stated datum: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; mean = 112.8; sd = 31.673 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Groundwater head and depth below ground have opposite directional meanings. Match datum, pumping state and seasonal context; observed drawdown is not itself a safe-yield estimate. Heads refer to an arbitrary stated datum. Compare pumping state, season and measurement method; do not calculate relative percentage or infer sustainable abstraction. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required TRENDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-002DP21 | Seasonal groundwater Adjust monitoring to seasonal groundwater variation Inputs and exampleComparable seasonal groundwater head on the stated datum [m]; Observed groundwater head on the same datum [m]; Datum, pumping state and seasonal reference Result: Difference (m) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — seasonal groundwater. Comparable seasonal groundwater head on the stated datum = 102.4 m; Observed groundwater head on the same datum = 100.9 m; Datum, pumping state and seasonal reference = Fictional common datum / static non-pumping observation / matching seasonal window. Results: Difference = -1.5 m. Changed input. Change Comparable seasonal groundwater head on the stated datum = 103.4. Result: Difference = -2.5 m. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable seasonal groundwater head on the stated datum: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ANOMALYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-003DP21 | Groundwater quality Investigate wells exceeding applicable use-specific limits Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [mg/L]; Example lower comparison bound [mg/L]; Example upper comparison bound [mg/L]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (mg/L) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — groundwater quality. Parameter and applicable use = Well-water chloride for selected use; Measured result = 230 mg/L; Example lower comparison bound = 0 mg/L; Example upper comparison bound = 200 mg/L; Original and limit unit = mg/L; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 230 mg/L. Changed input. Change Measured result = 231. Result: Measured value = 231 mg/L. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-004DP21 | Monitoring coverage Select groundwater areas needing observation wells Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [aquifer units]; Distinct members of that frame covered [aquifer units]; Frame members with unknown coverage [aquifer units] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; aquifer units; aquifer units) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — monitoring coverage. Required eligible frame = 100 aquifer units; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 aquifer units; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 aquifer units. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 aquifer units; Unknown coverage = 5 aquifer units. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 aquifer units; Unknown coverage = 5 aquifer units. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-005DP21 | Borehole siting Shortlist sites requiring detailed groundwater investigation Inputs and exampleGeology; Geology evidence reference; geophysics; geophysics evidence reference; nearby wells; nearby wells evidence reference; demand; demand evidence reference; contamination risks; contamination risks evidence reference; land access; land access evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — borehole siting. Geology = Missing; Geology evidence reference = ; geophysics = Documented; geophysics evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; nearby wells = Documented; nearby wells evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; demand = Documented; demand evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; contamination risks = Documented; contamination risks evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; land access = Documented; land access evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Geology = Documented; Geology evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Geology: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-006DP21 | Pumping tests Refer pumping-test results for safe-abstraction assessment Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [m³/day]; Independently reproduced value [m³/day]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [m³/day]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (m³/day; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — pumping tests. Earlier/source value = 100 m³/day; Independently reproduced value = 90 m³/day; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable m³/day measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 m³/day; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -10 m³/day; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 m³/day; Relative change = -10.891 %. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Reproducing a supplied pumping-test result does not establish sustainable yield or authorize abstraction. Drawdown, recovery, duration, interference and water-quality evidence remain necessary. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-007DP21 | Abstraction balance Compare recorded abstraction with reviewed aquifer budgets Inputs and exampleOpening storage [m³]; Recharge and external groundwater inflow [m³]; Abstraction and groundwater outflow [m³]; Other identified non-overlapping water outflow [m³]; Independently observed closing storage [m³] Result: Calculated closing storage; Observed minus calculated closing (m³; m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — abstraction balance. Opening storage = 160,000 m³; Recharge and external groundwater inflow = 48,000 m³; Abstraction and groundwater outflow = 35,000 m³; Other identified non-overlapping water outflow = 9,000 m³; Independently observed closing storage = 163,500 m³. Results: Calculated closing storage = 164,000 m³; Observed minus calculated closing = -500 m³. Changed input. Change Opening storage = 160,001. Result: Calculated closing storage = 164,001 m³; Observed minus calculated closing = -501 m³. Reconcile closing balance. Missing input. Omit Opening storage: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A storage-change calculation needs a defined aquifer boundary and compatible volume estimates. Groundwater head in metres is not a storage volume; uncertainty and safe-abstraction review remain separate. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-008DP21 | Well protection Investigate contamination sources near supply wells Inputs and exampleDocumented source-to-well separation [m]; Potential contamination source and observation reference; Hydrogeological flow-direction evidence; Use-specific reviewed protection criterion Result: Documented separation (m) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — well protection. Documented source-to-well separation = 150 m; Potential contamination source and observation reference = Sample documented source; Hydrogeological flow-direction evidence = Not provided; Use-specific reviewed protection criterion = Not provided. Results: Documented separation = 150 m. Changed input. Change Documented source-to-well separation = 151. Result: Documented separation = 151 m. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Documented source-to-well separation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-009DP21 | Saline intrusion Prioritize coastal groundwater salinity investigations Inputs and exampleComparable observation [µS/cm] Result: Observed value (µS/cm) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Kalpitiya — saline intrusion scenario. Comparable observation = 1,800 µS/cm. Results: Observed value = 1,800 µS/cm. Changed input. Change Comparable observation = 1,801. Result: Observed value = 1,801 µS/cm. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable observation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; mean = 1,900; sd = 360.555 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend. These are fictional coastal examples outside Knuckles. Conductivity is not a chloride concentration or proof of saline intrusion; sampling and hydrogeological evidence are needed. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required TRENDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-010DP21 | Industrial abstraction Refer industrial groundwater requests for determination Inputs and exampleDemand; Demand evidence reference; hydrogeological report; hydrogeological report evidence reference; abstraction proposal; abstraction proposal evidence reference; permits; permits evidence reference; monitoring conditions; monitoring conditions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — industrial abstraction. Demand = Missing; Demand evidence reference = ; hydrogeological report = Documented; hydrogeological report evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; abstraction proposal = Documented; abstraction proposal evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; permits = Documented; permits evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; monitoring conditions = Documented; monitoring conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Demand = Documented; Demand evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Demand: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S25, S26, S56 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP21-011DP21 | Recharge options Compare managed-recharge alternatives Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Infiltration basin under investigation. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional infiltration basin under investigation option: compare the documented Site geology, source-water quality.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-012DP21 | Mining impacts Investigate groundwater changes around extraction sites Inputs and exampleTreatment Groundwater head at common datum before [m]; Treatment Groundwater head at common datum after [m]; Comparison Groundwater head at common datum before [m]; Comparison Groundwater head at common datum after [m]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (m) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — mining impacts. Treatment Groundwater head at common datum before = 42 m; Treatment Groundwater head at common datum after = 59 m; Comparison Groundwater head at common datum before = 39 m; Comparison Groundwater head at common datum after = 46 m; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Groundwater head at common datum /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 10 m. Changed input. Change Treatment Groundwater head at common datum before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 m. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Groundwater head at common datum before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP21-013DP21 | Well rehabilitation Prioritize rehabilitation of poorly performing wells Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — well rehabilitation. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-014DP21 | Laboratory turnaround Clear delayed groundwater laboratory analyses Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — laboratory turnaround. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-015DP21 | Drought supply Compare feasible groundwater contingency supplies Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Rehabilitate a tested supply well. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional rehabilitate a tested supply well option: compare the documented Demand, verified yields.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-016DP21 | Drilling performance Review unsuccessful drilling and cost patterns Inputs and exampleDrilling cost [LKR]; Completed drilled depth [m]; Tested sustainable-yield evidence [L/s]; Outcome under the stated success definition Result: Cost per drilled metre; Reported pumping-test yield (LKR/m; L/s) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — drilling performance. Drilling cost = 1,800,000 LKR; Completed drilled depth = 60 m; Tested sustainable-yield evidence = 2.4 L/s; Outcome under the stated success definition = Unknown. Results: Cost per drilled metre = 30,000 LKR/m; Reported pumping-test yield = 2.4 L/s. Changed input. Change Drilling cost = 1,800,001. Result: Cost per drilled metre = 30,000.017 LKR/m; Reported pumping-test yield = 2.4 L/s. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Drilling cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-017DP21 | Monitoring devices Restore failed groundwater loggers and calibration Inputs and exampleExpected observations in the window [observations]; Distinct valid observations [observations]; Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval [days] Result: Completeness; Age of latest observation; Missing observations (%; days; observations) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — monitoring devices. Expected observations in the window = 30 observations; Distinct valid observations = 24 observations; Latest valid observation = 2025-06-28; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Required observation interval = 1 days. Results: Completeness = 80 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 6 observations. Changed input. Change Expected observations in the window = 31. Result: Completeness = 77.419 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 7 observations. Check overdue observation. Missing input. Omit Expected observations in the window: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FRESHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-018DP21 | Public evidence Prepare permitted groundwater information releases Inputs and exampleDataset; Dataset evidence reference; location sensitivity; location sensitivity evidence reference; ownership; ownership evidence reference; intended use; intended use evidence reference; license; license evidence reference; approval; approval evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — public evidence. Dataset = Missing; Dataset evidence reference = ; location sensitivity = Documented; location sensitivity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; ownership = Documented; ownership evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; intended use = Documented; intended use evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; license = Documented; license evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approval = Documented; approval evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Dataset = Documented; Dataset evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Dataset: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-019DP21 | Aquifer models Validate aquifer-model predictions before planning use Inputs and exampleExpected head on the stated model datum [m]; Supplied independently reproduced head on that datum [m]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [m]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference (m) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — aquifer models. Expected head on the stated model datum = 101 m; Supplied independently reproduced head on that datum = 100.8 m; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable m measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.1 m; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -0.2 m. Changed input. Change Expected head on the stated model datum = 102. Result: Difference = -1.2 m. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Expected head on the stated model datum: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP21-020DP21 | Well registry Resolve inconsistent well identifiers and construction metadata Inputs and exampleWell ID; Well ID evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; depth; depth evidence reference; screen interval; screen interval evidence reference; datum; datum evidence reference; construction date; construction date evidence reference; source; source evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — well registry. Well ID = Missing; Well ID evidence reference = ; location = Documented; location evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; depth = Documented; depth evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; screen interval = Documented; screen interval evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; datum = Documented; datum evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; construction date = Documented; construction date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source = Documented; source evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Well ID = Documented; Well ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Well ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Hydrogeologist and water-quality specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-001DP22 | Non-revenue water Prioritize systems with large unexplained water balances Inputs and exampleCorrected system input [m³]; Billed authorized consumption [m³]; Unbilled authorized consumption [m³]; Estimated apparent losses [m³] Result: Non-revenue water; NRW share; Water losses; Residual real-loss estimate (m³; %; m³; m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — non-revenue water. Corrected system input = 80,000 m³; Billed authorized consumption = 57,000 m³; Unbilled authorized consumption = 3,200 m³; Estimated apparent losses = 4,500 m³. Results: Non-revenue water = 23,000 m³; NRW share = 28.75 %; Water losses = 19,800 m³; Residual real-loss estimate = 15,300 m³. Changed input. Change Corrected system input = 80,001. Result: Non-revenue water = 23,001 m³; NRW share = 28.751 %; Water losses = 19,801 m³; Residual real-loss estimate = 15,301 m³. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Corrected system input: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits NRW is not all leakage. An unknown apparent-loss estimate keeps residual real loss unavailable. Meter uncertainty and matching time/zone boundaries matter. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · IWA water-balance components Asian Development Bank · Figure 4, printed page 15; Annex 1 Water Balance Definitions, printed pages 39–41, PDF pages 47–49 Institution publication - Asian Development Bank NRWImplementation: prototype Method source: DD-NRW |
| DEC-DP22-002DP22 | Leakage management Target leakage investigations by service area Inputs and exampleCorrected system input [m³]; Billed authorized consumption [m³]; Unbilled authorized consumption [m³]; Estimated apparent losses [m³] Result: Non-revenue water; NRW share; Water losses; Residual real-loss estimate (m³; %; m³; m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — leakage management. Corrected system input = 80,000 m³; Billed authorized consumption = 57,000 m³; Unbilled authorized consumption = 3,200 m³; Estimated apparent losses = 4,500 m³. Results: Non-revenue water = 23,000 m³; NRW share = 28.75 %; Water losses = 19,800 m³; Residual real-loss estimate = 15,300 m³. Changed input. Change Corrected system input = 80,001. Result: Non-revenue water = 23,001 m³; NRW share = 28.751 %; Water losses = 19,801 m³; Residual real-loss estimate = 15,301 m³. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Corrected system input: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits NRW is not all leakage. An unknown apparent-loss estimate keeps residual real loss unavailable. Meter uncertainty and matching time/zone boundaries matter. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · IWA water-balance components Asian Development Bank · Figure 4, printed page 15; Annex 1 Water Balance Definitions, printed pages 39–41, PDF pages 47–49 Institution publication - Asian Development Bank NRWImplementation: prototype Method source: DD-NRW |
| DEC-DP22-003DP22 | Service expansion Prioritize underserved areas for water-service appraisal Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service expansion. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-004DP22 | Water quality Refer treated-water results outside applicable limits Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [NTU]; Example lower comparison bound [NTU]; Example upper comparison bound [NTU]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (NTU) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — water quality. Parameter and applicable use = Treated-water turbidity; Measured result = 1.4 NTU; Example lower comparison bound = 0 NTU; Example upper comparison bound = 1 NTU; Original and limit unit = NTU; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 1.4 NTU. Changed input. Change Measured result = 1.414. Result: Measured value = 1.414 NTU. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-005DP22 | Water safety planning Prioritize source-to-consumer hazards and controls Inputs and exampleSupply system; Supply system evidence reference; hazards; hazards evidence reference; exposure; exposure evidence reference; control measures; control measures evidence reference; evidence; evidence evidence reference; approved risk method; approved risk method evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — water safety planning. Supply system = Missing; Supply system evidence reference = ; hazards = Documented; hazards evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; exposure = Documented; exposure evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; control measures = Documented; control measures evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; evidence = Documented; evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approved risk method = Documented; approved risk method evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Supply system = Documented; Supply system evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Supply system: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: S56 |
| DEC-DP22-006DP22 | Treatment capacity Compare peak demand with usable treatment capacity Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [m³/day]; Rated capacity for that period [m³/day]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [m³/day] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (m³/day; m³/day) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — treatment capacity. Demand in the selected period = 150 m³/day; Rated capacity for that period = 180 m³/day; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 m³/day. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 m³/day; Usable capacity = 135 m³/day. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 m³/day; Usable capacity = 135 m³/day. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-007DP22 | Pressure management Investigate pressure outside reviewed operating conditions Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [m head]; Example lower comparison bound [m head]; Example upper comparison bound [m head]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (m head) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — pressure management. Parameter and applicable use = Service pressure at stated node/time; Measured result = 8 m head; Example lower comparison bound = 10 m head; Example upper comparison bound = 35 m head; Original and limit unit = m head; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 8 m head. Changed input. Change Measured result = 8.08. Result: Measured value = 8.08 m head. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-008DP22 | Pipe replacement Prioritize pipe rehabilitation using verified asset condition Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — pipe replacement. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-009DP22 | Pump efficiency Select pumping systems for energy-efficiency appraisal Inputs and exampleElectric energy consumed [kWh]; Water pumped [m³] Result: Specific energy use (kWh/m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — pump efficiency. Electric energy consumed = 3,128 kWh; Water pumped = 18,000 m³. Results: Specific energy use = 0.174 kWh/m³. Changed input. Change Electric energy consumed = 3,129. Result: Specific energy use = 0.174 kWh/m³. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Electric energy consumed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-010DP22 | Meter replacement Schedule verification of suspect customer and bulk meters Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — meter replacement. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-011DP22 | Supply interruptions Address recurrent and prolonged supply outages Inputs and exampleSupply observation window starts at local midnight; Supply observation window ends at local midnight; Stated supply observation window [hours]; Union of recorded no-supply intervals [hours]; Distinct no-supply interruptions [events]; Longest recorded interruption [hours] Result: Recorded time availability; Distinct interruptions; Longest interruption (%; events; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama supply-zone scenario. Supply observation window starts at local midnight = 2025-06-23; Supply observation window ends at local midnight = 2025-06-30; Stated supply observation window = 168 hours; Union of recorded no-supply intervals = 13 hours; Distinct no-supply interruptions = 4 events; Longest recorded interruption = 6 hours. Results: Recorded time availability = 92.262 %; Distinct interruptions = 4 events; Longest interruption = 6 hours. Changed input. Change Union of recorded no-supply intervals = 14. Result: Recorded time availability = 91.667 %; Distinct interruptions = 4 events; Longest interruption = 6 hours. Review repeated interruptions and the longest outage. Missing input. Omit Supply observation window starts at local midnight: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits This is a fictional return for one stated supply zone and window. Time availability does not establish water quality, pressure, equitable household access or operational continuity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RELIABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-012DP22 | Source security Compare alternative sources under seasonal stress Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Improve existing-source management. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional improve existing-source management option: compare the documented Source yield, demand.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-013DP22 | Connection requests Prioritize delayed service-connection applications Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — connection requests. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-014DP22 | Customer complaints Escalate unresolved water and sanitation complaints Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — customer complaints. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-015DP22 | Chemical supply Prevent treatment interruptions from chemical shortages Inputs and examplePhysical stock [kg chemical]; Quarantined stock [kg chemical]; Expired stock [kg chemical]; Committed usable stock [kg chemical]; Additional demand [kg chemical]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days] Result: Uncommitted usable stock; Additional demand gap (kg chemical; kg chemical) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — chemical supply. Physical stock = 1,200 kg chemical; Quarantined stock = 100 kg chemical; Expired stock = 50 kg chemical; Committed usable stock = 740 kg chemical; Additional demand = 500 kg chemical; Supplier lead time = 14 days; Remaining shelf life of usable stock = 30 days. Results: Uncommitted usable stock = 310 kg chemical; Additional demand gap = 190 kg chemical. Changed input. Change Physical stock = 1,201. Result: Uncommitted usable stock = 311 kg chemical; Additional demand gap = 189 kg chemical. Review replenishment gap. Missing input. Omit Physical stock: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INVENTORYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-016DP22 | Wastewater treatment Investigate effluent performance against permit conditions Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [mg/L]; Example lower comparison bound [mg/L]; Example upper comparison bound [mg/L]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (mg/L) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — wastewater treatment. Parameter and applicable use = Effluent BOD5; Measured result = 38 mg/L; Example lower comparison bound = 0 mg/L; Example upper comparison bound = 30 mg/L; Original and limit unit = mg/L; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 38 mg/L. Changed input. Change Measured result = 38.38. Result: Measured value = 38.38 mg/L. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-017DP22 | Sewer overflows Prioritize investigation of sewer overflow risks Inputs and exampleIncident history; Incident history evidence reference; pipe condition; pipe condition evidence reference; flow; flow evidence reference; sensitive receptors; sensitive receptors evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; controls; controls evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — sewer overflows. Incident history = Missing; Incident history evidence reference = ; pipe condition = Documented; pipe condition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; flow = Documented; flow evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; sensitive receptors = Documented; sensitive receptors evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rainfall = Documented; rainfall evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; controls = Documented; controls evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Incident history = Documented; Incident history evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Incident history: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-018DP22 | Capital investments Compare water-service investment alternatives Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP22-019DP22 | Community systems Target support to poorly functioning community water schemes Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community systems. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP22-020DP22 | Network records Resolve inconsistent asset and customer service-area references Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — network records. Original source value/definition = Asset IDs: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Asset IDs: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Water utility engineer, quality specialist and service/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-001DP23 | Geological constraints Refer proposed sites overlapping geological constraints Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — geological constraints. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-002DP23 | Mapping coverage Commission geological mapping in poorly covered catchments Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [ha]; Distinct members of that frame covered [ha]; Frame members with unknown coverage [ha] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; ha; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — mapping coverage. Required eligible frame = 100 ha; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 ha; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 ha. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 ha; Unknown coverage = 5 ha. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 ha; Unknown coverage = 5 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-003DP23 | Site investigation Select parcels requiring detailed geological investigation Inputs and exampleGeology; Geology evidence reference; slope; slope evidence reference; groundwater; groundwater evidence reference; project footprint; project footprint evidence reference; hazard evidence; hazard evidence evidence reference; expert requirements; expert requirements evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — site investigation. Geology = Missing; Geology evidence reference = ; slope = Documented; slope evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; groundwater = Documented; groundwater evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; project footprint = Documented; project footprint evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; hazard evidence = Documented; hazard evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; expert requirements = Documented; expert requirements evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Geology = Documented; Geology evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Geology: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-004DP23 | Map revisions Reassess site screening after geological-map changes Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [affected sites]; Later/comparison value [affected sites] Result: Difference; Relative change (affected sites; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — map revisions. Earlier/source value = 100 affected sites; Later/comparison value = 90 affected sites. Results: Difference = -10 affected sites; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 affected sites; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CHANGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-005DP23 | Mining licenses Refer complete mining applications for authorized determination Inputs and exampleApplication; Application evidence reference; mineral; mineral evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; land rights; land rights evidence reference; current conditions; current conditions evidence reference; environmental approval; environmental approval evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — mining licenses. Application = Missing; Application evidence reference = ; mineral = Documented; mineral evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; location = Documented; location evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; land rights = Documented; land rights evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current conditions = Documented; current conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; environmental approval = Documented; environmental approval evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Application = Documented; Application evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Application: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-006DP23 | Extraction monitoring Investigate extraction differing from authorized quantities Inputs and examplePlanned value [m³]; Observed value [m³] Result: Difference; Relative change (m³; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — extraction monitoring. Planned value = 100 m³; Observed value = 90 m³. Results: Difference = -10 m³; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Planned value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 m³; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-007DP23 | Mine rehabilitation Verify rehabilitation obligations before closure review Inputs and exampleMine ID; Mine ID evidence reference; approved plan; approved plan evidence reference; works; works evidence reference; inspection evidence; inspection evidence evidence reference; financial provisions; financial provisions evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — mine rehabilitation. Mine ID = Missing; Mine ID evidence reference = ; approved plan = Documented; approved plan evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; works = Documented; works evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection evidence = Documented; inspection evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; financial provisions = Documented; financial provisions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; conditions = Documented; conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Mine ID = Documented; Mine ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Mine ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-008DP23 | River sand Identify extraction proposals needing hydrological and ecological review Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — river sand. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-009DP23 | Quarry impacts Investigate documented quarry effects on nearby receptors Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [mm/s]; Example lower comparison bound [mm/s]; Example upper comparison bound [mm/s]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (mm/s) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — quarry impacts. Parameter and applicable use = Ground vibration peak particle velocity; Measured result = 5 mm/s; Example lower comparison bound = 0 mm/s; Example upper comparison bound = 4 mm/s; Original and limit unit = mm/s; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 5 mm/s. Changed input. Change Measured result = 5.05. Result: Measured value = 5.05 mm/s. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-010DP23 | Illegal extraction Refer suspected unlicensed extraction for investigation Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — illegal extraction. Original source value/definition = Observed footprint: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Observed footprint: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-011DP23 | Mineral resources Prioritize exploration using evidence and feasibility constraints Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Detailed surface investigation. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional detailed surface investigation option: compare the documented Geological evidence, sample results.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-012DP23 | Groundwater interactions Review mining proposals affecting groundwater systems Inputs and exampleMine depth; Mine depth evidence reference; aquifer; aquifer evidence reference; pumping; pumping evidence reference; well network; well network evidence reference; baseline quality; baseline quality evidence reference; hydrogeological assessment; hydrogeological assessment evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — groundwater interactions. Mine depth = Missing; Mine depth evidence reference = ; aquifer = Documented; aquifer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; pumping = Documented; pumping evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; well network = Documented; well network evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; baseline quality = Documented; baseline quality evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; hydrogeological assessment = Documented; hydrogeological assessment evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Mine depth = Documented; Mine depth evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Mine depth: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-013DP23 | Laboratory services Prioritize pending mineral and material analyses Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — laboratory services. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-014DP23 | Sample integrity Resolve analytical discrepancies before resource assessment Inputs and exampleOriginal source measurement [mg/kg]; Independent comparison measurement [mg/kg]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition Result: Difference; Relative change (mg/kg; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — sample integrity. Original source measurement = 100 mg/kg; Independent comparison measurement = 90 mg/kg; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable mg/kg measure; same input scope. Results: Difference = -10 mg/kg; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Original source measurement = 101. Result: Difference = -11 mg/kg; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original source measurement: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-015DP23 | Transport permissions Check mineral transport documents against authorized sources Inputs and exampleShipment; Shipment evidence reference; source license; source license evidence reference; mineral; mineral evidence reference; quantity; quantity evidence reference; route; route evidence reference; validity; validity evidence reference; required documents; required documents evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — transport permissions. Shipment = Missing; Shipment evidence reference = ; source license = Documented; source license evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; mineral = Documented; mineral evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; quantity = Documented; quantity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; route = Documented; route evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; validity = Documented; validity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; required documents = Documented; required documents evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Shipment = Documented; Shipment evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Shipment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-016DP23 | Mine inspections Schedule inspections according to approved risk priorities Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — mine inspections. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-017DP23 | Revenue reconciliation Investigate differences in extraction-related payable and recorded receipts Inputs and exampleOriginal source measurement [LKR]; Independent comparison measurement [LKR]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition Result: Difference; Relative change (LKR; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — revenue reconciliation. Original source measurement = 100 LKR; Independent comparison measurement = 90 LKR; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable LKR measure; same input scope. Results: Difference = -10 LKR; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Original source measurement = 101. Result: Difference = -11 LKR; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original source measurement: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-018DP23 | Geohazard evidence Escalate verified geohazard concerns to relevant specialists Inputs and exampleObserved instability; Observed instability evidence reference; geology; geology evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; exposed assets; exposed assets evidence reference; field evidence; field evidence evidence reference; referral; referral evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — geohazard evidence. Observed instability = Missing; Observed instability evidence reference = ; geology = Documented; geology evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; location = Documented; location evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; exposed assets = Documented; exposed assets evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; field evidence = Documented; field evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; referral = Documented; referral evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Observed instability = Documented; Observed instability evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Observed instability: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-019DP23 | Resource estimates Require reproducible mineral-resource estimation evidence Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [tonnes]; Independently reproduced value [tonnes]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [tonnes]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (tonnes; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — resource estimates. Earlier/source value = 100 tonnes; Independently reproduced value = 90 tonnes; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable tonnes measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 tonnes; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -10 tonnes; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 tonnes; Relative change = -10.891 %. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP23-020DP23 | Geological catalogue Improve discoverability and provenance of geological records Inputs and exampleMap ID; Map ID evidence reference; scale; scale evidence reference; survey date; survey date evidence reference; lithology definitions; lithology definitions evidence reference; owner; owner evidence reference; access rights; access rights evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — geological catalogue. Map ID = Missing; Map ID evidence reference = ; scale = Documented; scale evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; survey date = Documented; survey date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; lithology definitions = Documented; lithology definitions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; owner = Documented; owner evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; access rights = Documented; access rights evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Map ID = Documented; Map ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Map ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-001DP24 | Land applications Prioritize unresolved state-land applications Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land applications. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-002DP24 | Lease reviews Schedule lease and permit reviews before due dates Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — lease reviews. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-003DP24 | Digitization Target gaps in state-land record digitization Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [records]; Distinct members of that frame covered [records]; Frame members with unknown coverage [records] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; records; records) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — digitization. Required eligible frame = 100 records; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 records; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 records. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 records; Unknown coverage = 5 records. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 records; Unknown coverage = 5 records. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-004DP24 | Processing performance Address delays in administrative land requests Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — processing performance. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-005DP24 | Land allocation Refer allocation cases with complete eligibility evidence Inputs and exampleApplicant; Applicant evidence reference; parcel; parcel evidence reference; purpose; purpose evidence reference; current rules; current rules evidence reference; prior allocations; prior allocations evidence reference; documentary evidence; documentary evidence evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land allocation. Applicant = Missing; Applicant evidence reference = ; parcel = Documented; parcel evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; purpose = Documented; purpose evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current rules = Documented; current rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; prior allocations = Documented; prior allocations evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; documentary evidence = Documented; documentary evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Applicant = Documented; Applicant evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Applicant: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S29, S30 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP24-006DP24 | Boundary reconciliation Resolve conflicting state-land parcel records Inputs and exampleOriginal source measurement [ha]; Independent comparison measurement [ha]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition Result: Difference; Relative change (ha; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — boundary reconciliation. Original source measurement = 100 ha; Independent comparison measurement = 90 ha; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable ha measure; same input scope. Results: Difference = -10 ha; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Original source measurement = 101. Result: Difference = -11 ha; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original source measurement: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-007DP24 | Lease revenue Reconcile assessed rents collections and outstanding balances Inputs and exampleOpening rent receivable balance [LKR]; New assessed rent and documented additions [LKR]; Recorded rent collections [LKR]; Supported adjustments reducing receivables [LKR]; Independently recorded closing receivables [LKR] Result: Calculated closing receivables; Recorded minus calculated closing (LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — lease revenue. Opening rent receivable balance = 160,000 LKR; New assessed rent and documented additions = 48,000 LKR; Recorded rent collections = 35,000 LKR; Supported adjustments reducing receivables = 9,000 LKR; Independently recorded closing receivables = 163,500 LKR. Results: Calculated closing receivables = 164,000 LKR; Recorded minus calculated closing = -500 LKR. Changed input. Change Opening rent receivable balance = 160,001. Result: Calculated closing receivables = 164,001 LKR; Recorded minus calculated closing = -501 LKR. Reconcile closing balance. Missing input. Omit Opening rent receivable balance: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use the same physical boundary, period and units. A residual is a reconciliation issue, not automatically a measured loss. This demonstration does not assess rent, authorize an adjustment or write off a debt. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-008DP24 | Arrears follow-up Prioritize overdue lease revenue cases Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — arrears follow-up. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-009DP24 | Permit conditions Refer non-compliance with recorded land-use conditions Inputs and examplePermit version; Permit version evidence reference; required use; required use evidence reference; inspection findings; inspection findings evidence reference; due dates; due dates evidence reference; evidence; evidence evidence reference; authority; authority evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — permit conditions. Permit version = Missing; Permit version evidence reference = ; required use = Documented; required use evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection findings = Documented; inspection findings evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; due dates = Documented; due dates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; evidence = Documented; evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; authority = Documented; authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Permit version = Documented; Permit version evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Permit version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-010DP24 | Succession cases Refer succession and transfer requests for determination Inputs and examplePermit; Permit evidence reference; applicant evidence; applicant evidence evidence reference; legal documents; legal documents evidence reference; claims; claims evidence reference; current rules; current rules evidence reference; objections; objections evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — succession cases. Permit = Missing; Permit evidence reference = ; applicant evidence = Documented; applicant evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; legal documents = Documented; legal documents evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; claims = Documented; claims evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current rules = Documented; current rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; objections = Documented; objections evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Permit = Documented; Permit evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Permit: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S29, S30 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP24-011DP24 | Public-purpose land Compare suitable state parcels for public facilities Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Reuse a serviced state parcel. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional reuse a serviced state parcel option: compare the documented Parcel availability, service need.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-012DP24 | Land disputes Resolve outstanding claims and objections before determination Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land disputes. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-013DP24 | Land reservations Review allocation requests overlapping protected reservations Inputs and exampleAssessed footprint or frame [ha]; Reported common overlap, counted once [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Overlap share; Overlapping area (%; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land reservations. Assessed footprint or frame = 75 ha; Reported common overlap, counted once = 18 ha; Boundary edition = Sample boundary1; Constraint definition = Sample constraint class; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Overlap share = 24 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Changed input. Change Assessed footprint or frame = 75.75. Result: Overlap share = 23.762 %; Overlapping area = 18 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Assessed footprint or frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-014DP24 | Institutional handover Verify documentation for inter-agency land transfers Inputs and exampleParcel; Parcel evidence reference; receiving agency; receiving agency evidence reference; authorization; authorization evidence reference; survey; survey evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference; handover evidence; handover evidence evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — institutional handover. Parcel = Missing; Parcel evidence reference = ; receiving agency = Documented; receiving agency evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; authorization = Documented; authorization evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; survey = Documented; survey evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; conditions = Documented; conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; handover evidence = Documented; handover evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Parcel = Documented; Parcel evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Parcel: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-015DP24 | Unauthorized occupation Refer suspected unauthorized occupation for investigation Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — unauthorized occupation. Original source value/definition = Occupation evidence: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Occupation evidence: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-016DP24 | Valuation review Request valuation updates where lease assessments are outdated Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — valuation review. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-017DP24 | Land-use effectiveness Review whether allocated land serves approved purposes Inputs and exampleAllocated hectares for the stated approved purpose [ha]; Matching hectares with evidence of that same use [ha] Result: Difference; Relative change (ha; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land-use effectiveness. Allocated hectares for the stated approved purpose = 100 ha; Matching hectares with evidence of that same use = 90 ha. Results: Difference = -10 ha; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Allocated hectares for the stated approved purpose = 101. Result: Difference = -11 ha; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Allocated hectares for the stated approved purpose: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits A difference prompts evidence review. It does not cancel a permit, establish a breach or determine rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-018DP24 | Record access Determine permitted release of land and applicant information Inputs and exampleRequested fields; Requested fields evidence reference; purpose; purpose evidence reference; rights; rights evidence reference; classification; classification evidence reference; scope; scope evidence reference; approval; approval evidence reference; validity; validity evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — record access. Requested fields = Missing; Requested fields evidence reference = ; purpose = Documented; purpose evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rights = Documented; rights evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; classification = Documented; classification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; scope = Documented; scope evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approval = Documented; approval evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; validity = Documented; validity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Requested fields = Documented; Requested fields evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Requested fields: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-019DP24 | Document quality Correct missing references in electronic land files Inputs and exampleCase ID; Case ID evidence reference; document type; document type evidence reference; survey reference; survey reference evidence reference; issuer; issuer evidence reference; date; date evidence reference; version; version evidence reference; authenticity; authenticity evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — document quality. Case ID = Missing; Case ID evidence reference = ; document type = Documented; document type evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; survey reference = Documented; survey reference evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; issuer = Documented; issuer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; date = Documented; date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; version = Documented; version evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; authenticity = Documented; authenticity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Case ID = Documented; Case ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Case ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP24-020DP24 | Office capacity Allocate case-processing capacity across land offices Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [staff hours]; Rated capacity for that period [staff hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [staff hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (staff hours; staff hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — office capacity. Demand in the selected period = 150 staff hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 staff hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 staff hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-001DP25 | Price spreads Investigate large comparable farmgate wholesale and retail spreads Inputs and exampleComparable purchase quotation [LKR/kg]; Comparable selling quotation [LKR/kg]; Non-overlapping transfer costs [LKR/kg]; Expected saleable mass loss [%]; Product, grade and price basis Result: Quoted net return per purchased kg; Unadjusted quoted spread (LKR/kg; LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — price spreads. Comparable purchase quotation = 180 LKR/kg; Comparable selling quotation = 222 LKR/kg; Non-overlapping transfer costs = 20 LKR/kg; Expected saleable mass loss = 5 %; Product, grade and price basis = Tomato / same stated grade / per purchased kilogram. Results: Quoted net return per purchased kg = 10.9 LKR/kg; Unadjusted quoted spread = 42 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Comparable purchase quotation = 181. Result: Quoted net return per purchased kg = 9.9 LKR/kg; Unadjusted quoted spread = 41 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable purchase quotation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use matching grade, price date, currency, mass basis and payment terms. This quotation scenario excludes unlisted costs and is not realized profit or a forecast. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required PRICEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-002DP25 | Price volatility Prioritize commodities with unusual price variability Inputs and exampleComparable observation [LKR/kg] Result: Observed value (LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — price volatility. Comparable observation = 104 LKR/kg. Results: Observed value = 104 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Comparable observation = 105. Result: Observed value = 105 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable observation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; mean = 111; sd = 7; cv = 6.306 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Sample coefficient of variation National Institute of Standards and Technology United States · Description, sample coefficient of variation and ratio-scale restrictions Government publication - National Institute of Standards and Technology United States VOLATILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: S84 |
| DEC-DP25-003DP25 | Seasonal markets Inform seasonal marketing using comparable historical patterns Inputs and exampleComparable observation [LKR/kg] Result: Observed value (LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — seasonal markets. Comparable observation = 104 LKR/kg. Results: Observed value = 104 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Comparable observation = 105. Result: Observed value = 105 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable observation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; mean = 111; sd = 7 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required TRENDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-004DP25 | Market comparisons Identify markets requiring closer price-distribution study Inputs and exampleComparable observation [LKR/kg] Result: Observed value (LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — market comparisons. Comparable observation = 104 LKR/kg. Results: Observed value = 104 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Comparable observation = 105. Result: Observed value = 105 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable observation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; mean = 111; sd = 7; cv = 6.306 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required DISTRIBUTIONImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-005DP25 | Market coverage Expand observations where price reporting is incomplete Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [quotes]; Distinct members of that frame covered [quotes]; Frame members with unknown coverage [quotes] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; quotes; quotes) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — market coverage. Required eligible frame = 100 quotes; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 quotes; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 quotes. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 quotes; Unknown coverage = 5 quotes. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 quotes; Unknown coverage = 5 quotes. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-006DP25 | Food affordability Compare documented food-basket costs across locations Inputs and exampleRaw rice in the stated basket [kg]; Comparable raw-rice price [LKR/kg]; Red dhal in the stated basket [kg]; Comparable red-dhal price [LKR/kg]; White sugar in the stated basket [kg]; Comparable white-sugar price [LKR/kg] Result: Stated three-item basket cost (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama price-basket scenario. Raw rice in the stated basket = 5 kg; Comparable raw-rice price = 220 LKR/kg; Red dhal in the stated basket = 1 kg; Comparable red-dhal price = 350 LKR/kg; White sugar in the stated basket = 1 kg; Comparable white-sugar price = 290 LKR/kg. Results: Stated three-item basket cost = 1,740 LKR. Changed input. Change Comparable raw-rice price = 240. Result: Stated three-item basket cost = 1,840 LKR. Check matching product grades and price sources. Missing input. Omit Raw rice in the stated basket: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits This is a fictional three-item basket with stated quantities. It is not an official consumer-price index, nutritional basket, current market quotation or household expenditure estimate. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COSTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-007DP25 | Farmer returns Assess enterprise margins for policy research Inputs and exampleSaleable output [kg]; Realized price [LKR/kg]; Variable costs [LKR]; Matching crop area [ha]; Crop and saleable-output basis Result: Enterprise gross margin; Gross margin per hectare; Variable-cost break-even price (LKR; LKR/ha; LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — farmer returns. Saleable output = 4,500 kg; Realized price = 110 LKR/kg; Variable costs = 360,000 LKR; Matching crop area = 1 ha; Crop and saleable-output basis = Paddy rough rice / fictional one-hectare crop enterprise / same season. Results: Enterprise gross margin = 135,000 LKR; Gross margin per hectare = 135,000 LKR/ha; Variable-cost break-even price = 80 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Saleable output = 4,501. Result: Enterprise gross margin = 135,110 LKR; Gross margin per hectare = 135,110 LKR/ha; Variable-cost break-even price = 79.982 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Saleable output: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep fixed costs, family-labour opportunity cost, taxes and financing identifiable. Gross margin is not net profit. Crop, prices and costs are fictional coherent enterprise assumptions. Gross margin excludes fixed and financing costs; it is not household income or net profit. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Enterprise gross margin Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Chapter 4, Gross margin and section 4.7.1 Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations MARGINImplementation: prototype Method source: S76 |
| DEC-DP25-008DP25 | Marketing losses Identify value-chain stages requiring loss studies Inputs and exampleBatch input on stated moisture basis [kg]; Saleable output [kg]; Usable by-product [kg]; Closing stock [kg]; Documented transfers out [kg] Result: Unaccounted physical share; Unaccounted mass (%; kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — marketing losses. Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,200 kg; Saleable output = 970 kg; Usable by-product = 85 kg; Closing stock = 45 kg; Documented transfers out = 20 kg. Results: Unaccounted physical share = 6.667 %; Unaccounted mass = 80 kg. Changed input. Change Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,201. Result: Unaccounted physical share = 6.744 %; Unaccounted mass = 81 kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Batch input on stated moisture basis: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use a consistent moisture basis and process boundary. Unaccounted mass is not automatically avoidable food loss or spoilage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required LOSSImplementation: prototype Method source: S57 |
| DEC-DP25-009DP25 | Market integration Investigate persistent differences between connected markets Inputs and exampleComparable purchase quotation [LKR/kg]; Comparable selling quotation [LKR/kg]; Non-overlapping transfer costs [LKR/kg]; Expected saleable mass loss [%]; Product, grade and price basis Result: Quoted net return per purchased kg; Unadjusted quoted spread (LKR/kg; LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — market integration. Comparable purchase quotation = 180 LKR/kg; Comparable selling quotation = 222 LKR/kg; Non-overlapping transfer costs = 20 LKR/kg; Expected saleable mass loss = 5 %; Product, grade and price basis = Tomato / same stated grade / per purchased kilogram. Results: Quoted net return per purchased kg = 10.9 LKR/kg; Unadjusted quoted spread = 42 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Comparable purchase quotation = 181. Result: Quoted net return per purchased kg = 9.9 LKR/kg; Unadjusted quoted spread = 41 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable purchase quotation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use matching grade, price date, currency, mass basis and payment terms. This quotation scenario excludes unlisted costs and is not realized profit or a forecast. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required PRICEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-010DP25 | Policy evaluation Evaluate agricultural policy outcomes with credible comparisons Inputs and exampleTreatment Real enterprise income on stated price basis before [LKR/ha]; Treatment Real enterprise income on stated price basis after [LKR/ha]; Comparison Real enterprise income on stated price basis before [LKR/ha]; Comparison Real enterprise income on stated price basis after [LKR/ha]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (LKR/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — policy evaluation. Treatment Real enterprise income on stated price basis before = 420,000 LKR/ha; Treatment Real enterprise income on stated price basis after = 590,000 LKR/ha; Comparison Real enterprise income on stated price basis before = 390,000 LKR/ha; Comparison Real enterprise income on stated price basis after = 460,000 LKR/ha; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Real enterprise income on stated price basis /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 100,000 LKR/ha. Changed input. Change Treatment Real enterprise income on stated price basis before = 420,001. Result: Difference in changes = 99,999 LKR/ha. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Real enterprise income on stated price basis before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP25-011DP25 | Input markets Investigate shifts in agricultural input expenditure Inputs and exampleSpecified basket/input quantity [kg]; Comparable unit price [LKR/kg]; Item, grade and basket specification Result: Item expenditure (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — input markets. Specified basket/input quantity = 50 kg; Comparable unit price = 210 LKR/kg; Item, grade and basket specification = Urea / stated same grade and bag basis. Results: Item expenditure = 10,500 LKR. Changed input. Change Specified basket/input quantity = 50.5. Result: Item expenditure = 10,605 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Specified basket/input quantity: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable. Fictional same-grade urea prices are in LKR/kg. Quantity and unit price effects are kept separate; no current market price is implied. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COSTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-012DP25 | Farmer organization research Identify organizational barriers to collective marketing Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Improve group governance and records. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional improve group governance and records option: compare the documented Organization evidence, participation.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-013DP25 | Land and labour Review farm labour costs and labour-use differences Inputs and examplePerson-days worked [person-days]; Cash wage per hired person-day [LKR/person-day]; Matching cultivated area [ha]; Unpaid family labour [person-days] Result: Cash labour cost per hectare; Total labour per hectare (LKR/ha; person-days/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land and labour. Person-days worked = 45 person-days; Cash wage per hired person-day = 3,200 LKR/person-day; Matching cultivated area = 2 ha; Unpaid family labour = 12 person-days. Results: Cash labour cost per hectare = 72,000 LKR/ha; Total labour per hectare = 28.5 person-days/ha. Changed input. Change Person-days worked = 45.45. Result: Cash labour cost per hectare = 72,720 LKR/ha; Total labour per hectare = 28.725 person-days/ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Person-days worked: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-014DP25 | Food supply disruptions Prioritize research on documented market supply shocks Inputs and exampleComparable reference value [kg]; Later/comparison value [kg] Result: Difference; Relative change (kg; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — food supply disruptions. Comparable reference value = 100 kg; Later/comparison value = 90 kg. Results: Difference = -10 kg; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Comparable reference value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 kg; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable reference value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ANOMALYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-015DP25 | Storage investments Compare storage and handling options for perishables Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP25-016DP25 | Survey design Select agrarian research sampling strategies Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Stratified farm-household survey. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional stratified farm-household survey option: compare the documented Target population, strata.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-017DP25 | Publication quality Resolve contradictory market observations before release Inputs and exampleOriginal source measurement [LKR/kg]; Independent comparison measurement [LKR/kg]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition Result: Difference; Relative change (LKR/kg; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — publication quality. Original source measurement = 100 LKR/kg; Independent comparison measurement = 90 LKR/kg; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable LKR/kg measure; same input scope. Results: Difference = -10 LKR/kg; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Original source measurement = 101. Result: Difference = -11 LKR/kg; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original source measurement: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-018DP25 | Training priorities Target agrarian training to documented capability gaps Inputs and exampleParticipants with a documented relevant capability gap [participants]; Those participants receiving the matching training [participants]; Participants with unknown training status [participants] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; participants; participants) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — training priorities. Participants with a documented relevant capability gap = 100 participants; Those participants receiving the matching training = 65 participants; Participants with unknown training status = 5 participants. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 participants; Unknown coverage = 5 participants. Changed input. Change Participants with a documented relevant capability gap = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 participants; Unknown coverage = 5 participants. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Participants with a documented relevant capability gap: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Training coverage is not verified adoption or a measured gain in capability. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-019DP25 | Research requests Prioritize policy-analysis requests by decision deadlines Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — research requests. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP25-020DP25 | Evidence reproducibility Independently reproduce agrarian research findings Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [LKR/ha]; Independently reproduced value [LKR/ha]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [LKR/ha]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (LKR/ha; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — evidence reproducibility. Earlier/source value = 100 LKR/ha; Independently reproduced value = 90 LKR/ha; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable LKR/ha measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 LKR/ha; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -10 LKR/ha; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 LKR/ha; Relative change = -10.891 %. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-001DP26 | Export destinations Prioritize products and destination markets for support Inputs and exampleRecorded export value [LKR]; Matching export quantity [kg]; Product code, destination and grade Result: Export value; Value share; Quantity share (LKR; %; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Pepper — India. Recorded export value = 900,000 LKR; Matching export quantity = 500 kg; Product code, destination and grade = Pepper — India. Results: Export value = 900,000 LKR; Value share = 10.749 %; Quantity share = 17.986 %. Changed input. Change Recorded export value = 900,001. Result: Export value = 900,001 LKR; Value share = 10.749 %; Quantity share = 17.986 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Recorded export value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. total = 8,372,500; hhi = 0.179 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COMPOSITIONImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-002DP26 | Market dependence Identify excessive dependence on few export markets Inputs and exampleRecorded export value in this distinct destination [LKR] Result: Category amount; Share of selected total (LKR; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. India. Recorded export value in this distinct destination = 90,000,000 LKR. Results: Category amount = 90,000,000 LKR; Share of selected total = 45 %. Changed input. Change Recorded export value in this distinct destination = 90,000,001. Result: Category amount = 90,000,001 LKR; Share of selected total = 45 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Recorded export value in this distinct destination: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. total = 200,000,000; hhi = 0.289 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy. The fictional selected spice-export portfolio is not a national export total. No institutional concentration threshold is supplied. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · HHI concentration component United States Department of Justice · Definition and four-firm worked example Government publication - United States Department of Justice CONCENTRATIONImplementation: prototype Method source: S83 |
| DEC-DP26-003DP26 | Growth opportunities Target product groups contributing to export growth Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [LKR]; Later/comparison value [LKR] Result: Difference; Relative change (LKR; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Pepper export-value scenario. Earlier/source value = 8,500,000 LKR; Later/comparison value = 9,400,000 LKR. Results: Difference = 900,000 LKR; Relative change = 10.588 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 8,500,001. Result: Difference = 899,999 LKR; Relative change = 10.588 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits These are fictional nominal values for a stated portfolio. Value growth mixes price and quantity effects; it is not automatically real growth or a programme effect. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CHANGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-004DP26 | Unit values Investigate changing export unit values Inputs and exampleRecorded export value [LKR]; Export quantity on matching product basis [kg] Result: Output per resource (LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — unit values. Recorded export value = 8,832,000 LKR; Export quantity on matching product basis = 4,500 kg. Results: Output per resource = 1,962.667 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Recorded export value = 8,832,001. Result: Output per resource = 1,962.667 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Recorded export value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A unit value mixes prices and product composition. It is not automatically a like-for-like market price. Match grade, product code, currency and period. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-005DP26 | Exporter readiness Refer businesses to appropriate export-readiness support Inputs and exampleEnterprise; Enterprise evidence reference; product; product evidence reference; capacity; capacity evidence reference; compliance evidence; compliance evidence evidence reference; target market; target market evidence reference; readiness criteria; readiness criteria evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — exporter readiness. Enterprise = Missing; Enterprise evidence reference = ; product = Documented; product evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; capacity = Documented; capacity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; compliance evidence = Documented; compliance evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; target market = Documented; target market evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; readiness criteria = Documented; readiness criteria evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Enterprise = Documented; Enterprise evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Enterprise: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-006DP26 | Market access Identify unresolved market-entry requirements Inputs and exampleProduct; Product evidence reference; destination; destination evidence reference; current standards; current standards evidence reference; tariffs; tariffs evidence reference; certificates; certificates evidence reference; buyer requirements; buyer requirements evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — market access. Product = Missing; Product evidence reference = ; destination = Documented; destination evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current standards = Documented; current standards evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; tariffs = Documented; tariffs evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; certificates = Documented; certificates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; buyer requirements = Documented; buyer requirements evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Product = Documented; Product evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Product: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S33, S34 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP26-007DP26 | Trade promotion Compare proposed trade-promotion activities Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Targeted buyer meetings. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional targeted buyer meetings option: compare the documented Target buyers, market demand.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-008DP26 | Buyer matching Match verified exporter offers with buyer requirements Inputs and exampleOffered product and grade; Required product and grade; Available uncommitted quantity [kg]; Required quantity [kg]; Supply available from; Supply available until; Delivery window begins; Delivery window ends; Required quality, rights and conditions Result: Supply minus demand (kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — buyer matching. Offered product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Required product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Available uncommitted quantity = 1,200 kg; Required quantity = 1,500 kg; Supply available from = 2025-06-01; Supply available until = 2025-06-20; Delivery window begins = 2025-06-05; Delivery window ends = 2025-06-18; Required quality, rights and conditions = Met. Results: Supply minus demand = -300 kg. Changed input. Change Available uncommitted quantity = 1,201. Result: Supply minus demand = -299 kg. Review quantity/capacity gap. Missing input. Omit Offered product and grade: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-009DP26 | Export diversification Compare alternative products and markets under constraints Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Pepper sales to India. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional pepper sales to india option: compare the documented Product-market options, demand.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-010DP26 | Exporter development Target support to regions with uncovered export potential Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [enterprises]; Distinct members of that frame covered [enterprises]; Frame members with unknown coverage [enterprises] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; enterprises; enterprises) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — exporter development. Required eligible frame = 100 enterprises; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 enterprises; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 enterprises. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 enterprises; Unknown coverage = 5 enterprises. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 enterprises; Unknown coverage = 5 enterprises. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-011DP26 | Quality failures Prioritize corrective support after shipment nonconformities Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [%]; Example lower comparison bound [%]; Example upper comparison bound [%]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (%) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — quality failures. Parameter and applicable use = Shipment moisture under buyer specification; Measured result = 13 %; Example lower comparison bound = 0 %; Example upper comparison bound = 12 %; Original and limit unit = %; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 13 %. Changed input. Change Measured result = 13.13. Result: Measured value = 13.13 %. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-012DP26 | Brand development Compare product branding and certification investments Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP26-013DP26 | Promotion outcomes Evaluate realized outcomes of trade missions Inputs and exampleDistinct exporters in this mission cohort [cases]; Those exporters reached at follow-up [cases]; Those exporters with the defined verified buyer-order outcome [cases]; Exporters with unknown outcome follow-up [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. India buyer-mission cohort scenario. Distinct exporters in this mission cohort = 24 cases; Those exporters reached at follow-up = 20 cases; Those exporters with the defined verified buyer-order outcome = 6 cases; Exporters with unknown outcome follow-up = 4 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 25 %; Not verified complete = 18 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 4 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 14 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct exporters in this mission cohort = 25. Result: Verified completion share = 24 %; Not verified complete = 19 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 5 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 14 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct exporters in this mission cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-014DP26 | Trade barriers Escalate unresolved exporter market-access cases Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — trade barriers. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-015DP26 | Digital channels Target exporters needing digital market capability Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [enterprises]; Distinct members of that frame covered [enterprises]; Frame members with unknown coverage [enterprises] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; enterprises; enterprises) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — digital channels. Required eligible frame = 100 enterprises; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 enterprises; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 enterprises. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 enterprises; Unknown coverage = 5 enterprises. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 enterprises; Unknown coverage = 5 enterprises. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-016DP26 | Sustainable exports Review evidence supporting environmental product claims Inputs and exampleClaim; Claim evidence reference; product; product evidence reference; chain of custody; chain of custody evidence reference; certification; certification evidence reference; source rights; source rights evidence reference; verification; verification evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — sustainable exports. Claim = Missing; Claim evidence reference = ; product = Documented; product evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; chain of custody = Documented; chain of custody evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; certification = Documented; certification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source rights = Documented; source rights evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; verification = Documented; verification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Claim = Documented; Claim evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Claim: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-017DP26 | Logistics constraints Compare export routes and delivery feasibility Inputs and exampleSupplied journey distance from a documented route survey [km]; Supplied journey duration; not calculated here [minutes]; Usable vehicle/team capacity [t payload]; Required capacity [t payload]; Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window Result: Estimated travel time; Capacity minus demand (minutes; t payload) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — logistics constraints. Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey = 230 km; Supplied journey duration; not calculated here = 360 minutes; Usable vehicle/team capacity = 12 t payload; Required capacity = 10 t payload; Access, closures and operating conditions = Unresolved; Operating and service window = Sample operating window. Results: Estimated travel time = 360 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 2 t payload. Changed input. Change Supplied journey duration; not calculated here = 370. Result: Estimated travel time = 370 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 2 t payload. Resolve access/capacity evidence. Missing input. Omit Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Straight-line distance is not a road route. Example routes establish no current road status, emergency clearance or safe evacuation instruction. These are fictional supplied inland feeder journeys to a shipment interface, not complete international routes or verified current road conditions. This decision view compares supplied journeys. It does not calculate a route or run a coordinate-based analysis. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ROUTEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-018DP26 | Support funding Reconcile export-support commitments and verified delivery Inputs and exampleApproved financing need [LKR]; Confirmed commitments [LKR]; Funds actually disbursed [LKR]; Verified eligible expenditure [LKR] Result: Unfunded need; Committed but not disbursed; Disbursed but not spent (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — support funding. 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. Results: Unfunded need = 850,000 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Approved financing need = 3,500,001. Result: Unfunded need = 850,001 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Review unfunded need. Missing input. Omit Approved financing need: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep commitments, cash receipts, expenditure and verified physical outputs separate. Negative balances flag overcommitment or reconciliation; no automatic accounting adjustment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FUNDINGImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-019DP26 | Exporter directory Correct outdated or duplicate exporter profiles Inputs and exampleEnterprise identifier; Enterprise identifier evidence reference; products; products evidence reference; contact permission; contact permission evidence reference; verification date; verification date evidence reference; source; source evidence reference; duplicates; duplicates evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — exporter directory. Enterprise identifier = Missing; Enterprise identifier evidence reference = ; products = Documented; products evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; contact permission = Documented; contact permission evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; verification date = Documented; verification date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source = Documented; source evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; duplicates = Documented; duplicates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Enterprise identifier = Documented; Enterprise identifier evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Enterprise identifier: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP26-020DP26 | Export policy impact Assess outcomes of export-development interventions Inputs and exampleTreatment Comparable export value before [LKR]; Treatment Comparable export value after [LKR]; Comparison Comparable export value before [LKR]; Comparison Comparable export value after [LKR]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — export policy impact. Treatment Comparable export value before = 420,000 LKR; Treatment Comparable export value after = 590,000 LKR; Comparison Comparable export value before = 390,000 LKR; Comparison Comparable export value after = 460,000 LKR; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Comparable export value /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 100,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Treatment Comparable export value before = 420,001. Result: Difference in changes = 99,999 LKR. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Comparable export value before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP27-001DP27 | Support uptake Improve uptake of appropriate enterprise-support offers Inputs and exampleDistinct original enterprise support case in the stated cohort [cases]; Those original cohort members with documented review [cases]; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition [cases]; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — support uptake. Distinct original enterprise support case in the stated cohort = 180 cases; Those original cohort members with documented review = 132 cases; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition = 96 cases; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown = 12 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct original enterprise support case in the stated cohort = 181. Result: Verified completion share = 53.039 %; Not verified complete = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct original enterprise support case in the stated cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-002DP27 | Training progression Follow trainees needing subsequent business assistance Inputs and exampleDistinct original enterprise support case in the stated cohort [cases]; Those original cohort members with documented review [cases]; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition [cases]; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — training progression. Distinct original enterprise support case in the stated cohort = 180 cases; Those original cohort members with documented review = 132 cases; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition = 96 cases; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown = 12 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct original enterprise support case in the stated cohort = 181. Result: Verified completion share = 53.039 %; Not verified complete = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct original enterprise support case in the stated cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-003DP27 | Service delays Prioritize enterprise assistance cases waiting longest Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service delays. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-004DP27 | Geographic reach Redirect outreach toward underserved target districts Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [enterprises]; Distinct members of that frame covered [enterprises]; Frame members with unknown coverage [enterprises] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; enterprises; enterprises) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — geographic reach. Required eligible frame = 100 enterprises; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 enterprises; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 enterprises. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 enterprises; Unknown coverage = 5 enterprises. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 enterprises; Unknown coverage = 5 enterprises. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-005DP27 | Business viability Refer enterprise plans for financial and market appraisal Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP27-006DP27 | Finance referral Match enterprises to suitable finance-support pathways Inputs and exampleEnterprise needs; Enterprise needs evidence reference; finance product terms; finance product terms evidence reference; eligibility evidence; eligibility evidence evidence reference; repayment capacity; repayment capacity evidence reference; consent; consent evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — finance referral. Enterprise needs = Missing; Enterprise needs evidence reference = ; finance product terms = Documented; finance product terms evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; eligibility evidence = Documented; eligibility evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; repayment capacity = Documented; repayment capacity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; consent = Documented; consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Enterprise needs = Documented; Enterprise needs evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Enterprise needs: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S35, S51, S59 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP27-007DP27 | Mentoring Allocate mentors to documented enterprise needs Inputs and exampleDocumented skills/expertise; Task requirement; Available qualified effort [hours]; Required effort [hours]; Conflicts, clearance and mandate; Availability begins; Availability ends; Task window begins; Task window ends Result: Available minus required hours (hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — mentoring. Documented skills/expertise = Sample required skill; Task requirement = Sample required skill; Available qualified effort = 24 hours; Required effort = 16 hours; Conflicts, clearance and mandate = Unresolved; Availability begins = 2025-06-01; Availability ends = 2025-06-20; Task window begins = 2025-06-05; Task window ends = 2025-06-18. Results: Available minus required hours = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Available qualified effort = 24.24. Result: Available minus required hours = 8.24 hours. Resolve specification, window or conditions. Missing input. Omit Documented skills/expertise: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-008DP27 | Market linkages Match enterprise products with verified buyer demand Inputs and exampleOffered product and grade; Required product and grade; Available uncommitted quantity [kg]; Required quantity [kg]; Supply available from; Supply available until; Delivery window begins; Delivery window ends; Required quality, rights and conditions Result: Supply minus demand (kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — market linkages. Offered product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Required product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Available uncommitted quantity = 1,200 kg; Required quantity = 1,500 kg; Supply available from = 2025-06-01; Supply available until = 2025-06-20; Delivery window begins = 2025-06-05; Delivery window ends = 2025-06-18; Required quality, rights and conditions = Met. Results: Supply minus demand = -300 kg. Changed input. Change Available uncommitted quantity = 1,201. Result: Supply minus demand = -299 kg. Review quantity/capacity gap. Missing input. Omit Offered product and grade: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-009DP27 | Enterprise survival Target follow-up to supported businesses at risk of closure Inputs and exampleOriginal distinct cohort [enterprises]; Known operating enterprises [enterprises]; Known closed enterprises [enterprises]; Unknown follow-up [enterprises]; Later entrants outside original cohort [enterprises] Result: Confirmed continuation lower bound; Continuation upper bound; Unknown follow-up (%; %; enterprises) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — enterprise survival. Original distinct cohort = 450 enterprises; Known operating enterprises = 351 enterprises; Known closed enterprises = 70 enterprises; Unknown follow-up = 29 enterprises; Later entrants outside original cohort = 18 enterprises. Results: Confirmed continuation lower bound = 78 %; Continuation upper bound = 84.444 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 enterprises. Changed input. Change Known operating enterprises = 352; Known closed enterprises = 69. Result: Confirmed continuation lower bound = 78.222 %; Continuation upper bound = 84.667 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 enterprises. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original distinct cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SURVIVALImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-010DP27 | Business performance Review changes in enterprise outcomes after assistance Inputs and exampleTreatment Real enterprise sales on stated price basis before [LKR]; Treatment Real enterprise sales on stated price basis after [LKR]; Comparison Real enterprise sales on stated price basis before [LKR]; Comparison Real enterprise sales on stated price basis after [LKR]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — business performance. Treatment Real enterprise sales on stated price basis before = 420,000 LKR; Treatment Real enterprise sales on stated price basis after = 590,000 LKR; Comparison Real enterprise sales on stated price basis before = 390,000 LKR; Comparison Real enterprise sales on stated price basis after = 460,000 LKR; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Real enterprise sales on stated price basis /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 100,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Treatment Real enterprise sales on stated price basis before = 420,001. Result: Difference in changes = 99,999 LKR. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Real enterprise sales on stated price basis before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP27-011DP27 | Women and youth support Address gaps in access to enterprise opportunities Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [enterprises]; Distinct members of that frame covered [enterprises]; Frame members with unknown coverage [enterprises] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; enterprises; enterprises) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — women and youth support. Required eligible frame = 100 enterprises; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 enterprises; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 enterprises. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 enterprises; Unknown coverage = 5 enterprises. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 enterprises; Unknown coverage = 5 enterprises. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-012DP27 | Grant administration Refer complete enterprise-grant applications for determination Inputs and exampleScheme version; Scheme version evidence reference; applicant evidence; applicant evidence evidence reference; budget; budget evidence reference; eligibility; eligibility evidence reference; prior support; prior support evidence reference; approvals; approvals evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — grant administration. Scheme version = Missing; Scheme version evidence reference = ; applicant evidence = Documented; applicant evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; budget = Documented; budget evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; eligibility = Documented; eligibility evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; prior support = Documented; prior support evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approvals = Documented; approvals evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Scheme version = Documented; Scheme version evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Scheme version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S35, S51, S59 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP27-013DP27 | Duplicate assistance Review potentially overlapping enterprise subsidies Inputs and examplePermitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit Result: Overlapping days (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — duplicate assistance. Permitted recipient/service reference = Laggala Pallegama — duplicate assistance; 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. Results: Overlapping days = 61 days. Changed input. Change Other support period begins = 2025-01-01; Other support period ends = 2025-06-30. Result: Overlapping days = 181 days. Review possible overlap. Missing input. Omit Permitted recipient/service reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPEATImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-014DP27 | Business skills Prioritize training topics using verified capability gaps Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Basic business records. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional basic business records option: compare the documented Needs assessments, skills.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-015DP27 | Formalization support Identify enterprises needing registration or compliance referrals Inputs and exampleEnterprise stage; Enterprise stage evidence reference; required registrations; required registrations evidence reference; existing documents; existing documents evidence reference; gaps; gaps evidence reference; responsible agency; responsible agency evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — formalization support. Enterprise stage = Missing; Enterprise stage evidence reference = ; required registrations = Documented; required registrations evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; existing documents = Documented; existing documents evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; gaps = Documented; gaps evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; responsible agency = Documented; responsible agency evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Enterprise stage = Documented; Enterprise stage evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Enterprise stage: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-016DP27 | Climate resilience Compare enterprise adaptation options Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Protect critical equipment. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional protect critical equipment option: compare the documented Hazard exposure, business dependencies.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-017DP27 | Incubation capacity Allocate incubation services within facility and adviser limits Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [adviser hours]; Rated capacity for that period [adviser hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [adviser hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (adviser hours; adviser hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — incubation capacity. Demand in the selected period = 150 adviser hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 adviser hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 adviser hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 adviser hours; Usable capacity = 135 adviser hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 adviser hours; Usable capacity = 135 adviser hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-018DP27 | Programme finance Identify unfunded enterprise-support commitments Inputs and exampleApproved financing need [LKR]; Confirmed commitments [LKR]; Funds actually disbursed [LKR]; Verified eligible expenditure [LKR] Result: Unfunded need; Committed but not disbursed; Disbursed but not spent (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — programme finance. 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. Results: Unfunded need = 850,000 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Approved financing need = 3,500,001. Result: Unfunded need = 850,001 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Review unfunded need. Missing input. Omit Approved financing need: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep commitments, cash receipts, expenditure and verified physical outputs separate. Negative balances flag overcommitment or reconciliation; no automatic accounting adjustment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FUNDINGImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-019DP27 | Enterprise registry Resolve inconsistent enterprise identities before reporting Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — enterprise registry. Original source value/definition = Registration ID: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Registration ID: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP27-020DP27 | Programme effectiveness Select enterprise-support approaches for continuation or redesign Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Continue targeted mentoring. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional continue targeted mentoring option: compare the documented Verified outcomes, costs.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-001DP28 | Estate plots Match eligible industrial demand to available developed plots Inputs and examplePlot utility/use specification; Applicant utility/use needs; Available uncommitted quantity [m²]; Required quantity [m²]; Supply available from; Supply available until; Delivery window begins; Delivery window ends; Required quality, rights and conditions Result: Supply minus demand (m²) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — estate plots. Plot utility/use specification = Light manufacturing / stated three-phase power and water / permitted use specification; Applicant utility/use needs = Light manufacturing / stated three-phase power and water / permitted use specification; Available uncommitted quantity = 1,200 m²; Required quantity = 1,500 m²; Supply available from = 2025-06-01; Supply available until = 2025-06-20; Delivery window begins = 2025-06-05; Delivery window ends = 2025-06-18; Required quality, rights and conditions = Unresolved. Results: Supply minus demand = -300 m². Changed input. Change Available uncommitted quantity = 1,201. Result: Supply minus demand = -299 m². Resolve specification, window or conditions. Missing input. Omit Plot utility/use specification: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. Matching text and area do not establish actual utility capacity, rights, environmental permission or a plot allocation. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-002DP28 | Infrastructure readiness Prioritize missing estate utilities and access infrastructure Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [m³/day]; Rated capacity for that period [m³/day]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [m³/day] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (m³/day; m³/day) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — infrastructure readiness. Demand in the selected period = 150 m³/day; Rated capacity for that period = 180 m³/day; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 m³/day. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 m³/day; Usable capacity = 135 m³/day. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 m³/day; Usable capacity = 135 m³/day. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-003DP28 | Support outcomes Verify enterprise outcomes following technical assistance Inputs and exampleDistinct original industrial facility in the stated cohort [cases]; Those original cohort members with documented review [cases]; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition [cases]; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — support outcomes. Distinct original industrial facility in the stated cohort = 180 cases; Those original cohort members with documented review = 132 cases; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition = 96 cases; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown = 12 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct original industrial facility in the stated cohort = 181. Result: Verified completion share = 53.039 %; Not verified complete = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct original industrial facility in the stated cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-004DP28 | Estate requests Resolve outstanding tenant-support requests Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — estate requests. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-005DP28 | Technology upgrades Compare industrial modernization alternatives Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP28-006DP28 | Resource productivity Identify facilities with inefficient material and energy use Inputs and exampleSaleable product [kg]; Electric energy [kWh]; Process water [m³]; Raw material input [kg] Result: Energy per product; Water per product; Saleable mass conversion (kWh/kg; m³/kg; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — resource productivity. Saleable product = 4,500 kg; Electric energy = 3,400 kWh; Process water = 80 m³; Raw material input = 5,300 kg. Results: Energy per product = 0.756 kWh/kg; Water per product = 0.018 m³/kg; Saleable mass conversion = 84.906 %. Changed input. Change Saleable product = 4,501. Result: Energy per product = 0.755 kWh/kg; Water per product = 0.018 m³/kg; Saleable mass conversion = 84.925 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Saleable product: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-007DP28 | Product quality Target technical support to recurring quality failures Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [mm]; Example lower comparison bound [mm]; Example upper comparison bound [mm]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (mm) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — product quality. Parameter and applicable use = Product dimension under specification; Measured result = 10.4 mm; Example lower comparison bound = 9.8 mm; Example upper comparison bound = 10.2 mm; Original and limit unit = mm; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 10.4 mm. Changed input. Change Measured result = 10.504. Result: Measured value = 10.504 mm. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-008DP28 | Industrial training Schedule technical training around verified skill needs Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — industrial training. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-009DP28 | New enterprise appraisal Review proposed manufacturing projects against constraints Inputs and exampleBusiness plan; Business plan evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; utilities; utilities evidence reference; permits; permits evidence reference; costs; costs evidence reference; market evidence; market evidence evidence reference; eligibility; eligibility evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — new enterprise appraisal. Business plan = Missing; Business plan evidence reference = ; location = Documented; location evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; utilities = Documented; utilities evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; permits = Documented; permits evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; costs = Documented; costs evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; market evidence = Documented; market evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; eligibility = Documented; eligibility evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Business plan = Documented; Business plan evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Business plan: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S36, S37 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP28-010DP28 | Estate maintenance Prioritize shared infrastructure maintenance Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — estate maintenance. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-011DP28 | Rent reconciliation Follow up estate rent and lease-account discrepancies Inputs and exampleOpening rent receivable balance [LKR]; New assessed rent and documented additions [LKR]; Recorded rent collections [LKR]; Supported adjustments reducing receivables [LKR]; Independently recorded closing receivables [LKR] Result: Calculated closing receivables; Recorded minus calculated closing (LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — rent reconciliation. Opening rent receivable balance = 160,000 LKR; New assessed rent and documented additions = 48,000 LKR; Recorded rent collections = 35,000 LKR; Supported adjustments reducing receivables = 9,000 LKR; Independently recorded closing receivables = 163,500 LKR. Results: Calculated closing receivables = 164,000 LKR; Recorded minus calculated closing = -500 LKR. Changed input. Change Opening rent receivable balance = 160,001. Result: Calculated closing receivables = 164,001 LKR; Recorded minus calculated closing = -501 LKR. Reconcile closing balance. Missing input. Omit Opening rent receivable balance: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use the same physical boundary, period and units. A residual is a reconciliation issue, not automatically a measured loss. This demonstration does not assess rent, authorize an adjustment or write off a debt. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-012DP28 | Pollution referrals Refer industrial environmental concerns to competent agencies Inputs and exampleFacility; Facility evidence reference; observed discharge; observed discharge evidence reference; permits; permits evidence reference; inspection; inspection evidence reference; exposed receptors; exposed receptors evidence reference; authority; authority evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — pollution referrals. Facility = Missing; Facility evidence reference = ; observed discharge = Documented; observed discharge evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; permits = Documented; permits evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection = Documented; inspection evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; exposed receptors = Documented; exposed receptors evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; authority = Documented; authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Facility = Documented; Facility evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Facility: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-013DP28 | Common facilities Compare demand for shared industrial processing facilities Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [facility hours]; Rated capacity for that period [facility hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [facility hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (facility hours; facility hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — common facilities. Demand in the selected period = 150 facility hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 facility hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 facility hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 facility hours; Usable capacity = 135 facility hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 facility hours; Usable capacity = 135 facility hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-014DP28 | Product development Select feasible product-development support projects Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Improve an existing product prototype. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional improve an existing product prototype option: compare the documented Prototype evidence, market demand.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-015DP28 | Testing services Reduce delays in technical testing and consultancy Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — testing services. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-016DP28 | Supply-chain linkages Match industrial inputs by-products and buyer demand Inputs and exampleOffered product and grade; Required product and grade; Available uncommitted quantity [kg]; Required quantity [kg]; Supply available from; Supply available until; Delivery window begins; Delivery window ends; Required quality, rights and conditions Result: Supply minus demand (kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — supply-chain linkages. Offered product and grade = Clean uncontaminated wood offcuts / stated reusable grade; Required product and grade = Clean uncontaminated wood offcuts / stated reusable grade; Available uncommitted quantity = 1,200 kg; Required quantity = 1,500 kg; Supply available from = 2025-06-01; Supply available until = 2025-06-20; Delivery window begins = 2025-06-05; Delivery window ends = 2025-06-18; Required quality, rights and conditions = Unresolved. Results: Supply minus demand = -300 kg. Changed input. Change Available uncommitted quantity = 1,201. Result: Supply minus demand = -299 kg. Resolve specification, window or conditions. Missing input. Omit Offered product and grade: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. The material specification, contamination controls and lawful reuse conditions must be checked separately; no waste transfer is authorized. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-017DP28 | Worker safety Prioritize documented industrial safety concerns for specialist review Inputs and exampleHazards; Hazards evidence reference; exposure; exposure evidence reference; controls; controls evidence reference; incidents; incidents evidence reference; inspections; inspections evidence reference; applicable requirements; applicable requirements evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — worker safety. Hazards = Missing; Hazards evidence reference = ; exposure = Documented; exposure evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; controls = Documented; controls evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; incidents = Documented; incidents evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspections = Documented; inspections evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; applicable requirements = Documented; applicable requirements evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Hazards = Documented; Hazards evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Hazards: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: DD-ILO |
| DEC-DP28-018DP28 | Estate expansion Compare locations for new industrial-estate capacity Inputs and exampleLand constraints; Land constraints evidence reference; utilities; utilities evidence reference; transport; transport evidence reference; demand; demand evidence reference; costs; costs evidence reference; environmental approvals; environmental approvals evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — estate expansion. Land constraints = Missing; Land constraints evidence reference = ; utilities = Documented; utilities evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; transport = Documented; transport evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; demand = Documented; demand evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; costs = Documented; costs evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; environmental approvals = Documented; environmental approvals evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Land constraints = Documented; Land constraints evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Land constraints: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-019DP28 | Estate catalogue Correct outdated plot and facility information Inputs and examplePlot ID; Plot ID evidence reference; geometry; geometry evidence reference; tenant status; tenant status evidence reference; utilities; utilities evidence reference; last verification; last verification evidence reference; custodian; custodian evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — estate catalogue. Plot ID = Missing; Plot ID evidence reference = ; geometry = Documented; geometry evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; tenant status = Documented; tenant status evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; utilities = Documented; utilities evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; last verification = Documented; last verification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; custodian = Documented; custodian evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Plot ID = Documented; Plot ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Plot ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP28-020DP28 | Industrial outcomes Evaluate whether technical support improved enterprise performance Inputs and exampleTreatment Saleable production per resource before [kg/kWh]; Treatment Saleable production per resource after [kg/kWh]; Comparison Saleable production per resource before [kg/kWh]; Comparison Saleable production per resource after [kg/kWh]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (kg/kWh) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — industrial outcomes. Treatment Saleable production per resource before = 1.25 kg/kWh; Treatment Saleable production per resource after = 1.5 kg/kWh; Comparison Saleable production per resource before = 1.3 kg/kWh; Comparison Saleable production per resource after = 1.35 kg/kWh; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Saleable production per resource /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 0.2 kg/kWh. Changed input. Change Treatment Saleable production per resource before = 1.262. Result: Difference in changes = 0.188 kg/kWh. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Saleable production per resource before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP29-001DP29 | District projects Escalate overdue district project milestones Inputs and examplePlanned milestone/sowing date; Observed completion/sowing date Result: Calendar date difference (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — district projects. Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-06-01; Observed completion/sowing date = 2025-06-09. Results: Calendar date difference = 8 days. Changed input. Change Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-05-31. Result: Calendar date difference = 9 days. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned milestone/sowing date: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-002DP29 | Citizen services Prioritize aging district service requests Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — citizen services. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-003DP29 | Intervention coverage Coordinate investment in areas missing planned services Inputs and exampleDefined service catchments in the programme frame [service catchments]; Those catchments with the specified service [service catchments]; Catchments whose service coverage is unknown [service catchments] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; service catchments; service catchments) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — intervention coverage. Defined service catchments in the programme frame = 10 service catchments; Those catchments with the specified service = 6 service catchments; Catchments whose service coverage is unknown = 1 service catchments. Results: Verified coverage = 60 %; Known uncovered = 3 service catchments; Unknown coverage = 1 service catchments. Changed input. Change Defined service catchments in the programme frame = 11. Result: Verified coverage = 54.545 %; Known uncovered = 4 service catchments; Unknown coverage = 1 service catchments. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Defined service catchments in the programme frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-004DP29 | District reporting Follow up missing or outdated divisional returns Inputs and exampleExpected observations in the window [observations]; Distinct valid observations [observations]; Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval [days] Result: Completeness; Age of latest observation; Missing observations (%; days; observations) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — district reporting. Expected observations in the window = 30 observations; Distinct valid observations = 24 observations; Latest valid observation = 2025-06-28; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Required observation interval = 1 days. Results: Completeness = 80 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 6 observations. Changed input. Change Expected observations in the window = 31. Result: Completeness = 77.419 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 7 observations. Check overdue observation. Missing input. Omit Expected observations in the window: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FRESHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-005DP29 | District planning Compare district development priorities within resource limits Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Repair an essential local service. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional repair an essential local service option: compare the documented Needs, project options.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-006DP29 | Disaster coordination Allocate district response resources against verified needs Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [team hours]; Rated capacity for that period [team hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [team hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (team hours; team hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — disaster coordination. Demand in the selected period = 150 team hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 team hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 team hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 team hours; Usable capacity = 135 team hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 team hours; Usable capacity = 135 team hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-007DP29 | Funding coordination Identify district activities without confirmed financing Inputs and exampleApproved financing need [LKR]; Confirmed commitments [LKR]; Funds actually disbursed [LKR]; Verified eligible expenditure [LKR] Result: Unfunded need; Committed but not disbursed; Disbursed but not spent (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — funding coordination. 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. Results: Unfunded need = 850,000 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Approved financing need = 3,500,001. Result: Unfunded need = 850,001 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Review unfunded need. Missing input. Omit Approved financing need: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep commitments, cash receipts, expenditure and verified physical outputs separate. Negative balances flag overcommitment or reconciliation; no automatic accounting adjustment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FUNDINGImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-008DP29 | Land coordination Resolve cross-agency land issues delaying public works Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land coordination. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-009DP29 | Infrastructure access Compare service access across district communities Inputs and exampleSupplied journey distance from a documented route survey [km]; Supplied journey duration; not calculated here [minutes]; Usable vehicle/team capacity [units]; Required capacity [units]; Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window Result: Estimated travel time; Capacity minus demand (minutes; units) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — infrastructure access. 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. Results: Estimated travel time = 65 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Changed input. Change Supplied journey duration; not calculated here = 75. Result: Estimated travel time = 75 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Resolve access/capacity evidence. Missing input. Omit Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ROUTEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-010DP29 | Beneficiary overlap Review overlapping assistance across district programmes Inputs and examplePermitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit Result: Overlapping days (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — beneficiary overlap. Permitted recipient/service reference = Laggala Pallegama — beneficiary overlap; 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. Results: Overlapping days = 61 days. Changed input. Change Other support period begins = 2025-01-01; Other support period ends = 2025-06-30. Result: Overlapping days = 181 days. Review possible overlap. Missing input. Omit Permitted recipient/service reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPEATImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-011DP29 | Safeguard follow-up Escalate unresolved safeguards in district investments Inputs and exampleProject approval; Project approval evidence reference; safeguard conditions; safeguard conditions evidence reference; inspections; inspections evidence reference; affected groups; affected groups evidence reference; due dates; due dates evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — safeguard follow-up. Project approval = Missing; Project approval evidence reference = ; safeguard conditions = Documented; safeguard conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspections = Documented; inspections evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; affected groups = Documented; affected groups evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; due dates = Documented; due dates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Project approval = Documented; Project approval evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Project approval: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-012DP29 | Divisional capacity Target administrative support to overloaded divisions Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [staff hours]; Rated capacity for that period [staff hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [staff hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (staff hours; staff hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — divisional capacity. Demand in the selected period = 150 staff hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 staff hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 staff hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-013DP29 | District grievances Resolve inter-agency grievances with clear ownership Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — district grievances. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-014DP29 | Public consultation Ensure affected groups are heard in district plans Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — public consultation. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-015DP29 | Programme inclusion Address documented exclusion from district services Inputs and exampleEligible households in the defined service frame [households]; Those households with recorded access [households]; Households whose access status is unknown [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — programme inclusion. Eligible households in the defined service frame = 100 households; Those households with recorded access = 65 households; Households whose access status is unknown = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Eligible households in the defined service frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Eligible households in the defined service frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-016DP29 | Procurement dependencies Schedule district procurements affecting critical works Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — procurement dependencies. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-017DP29 | Asset handover Verify ownership and maintenance of completed public assets Inputs and exampleAsset; Asset evidence reference; acceptance evidence; acceptance evidence evidence reference; assigned owner; assigned owner evidence reference; maintenance budget; maintenance budget evidence reference; handover conditions; handover conditions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — asset handover. Asset = Missing; Asset evidence reference = ; acceptance evidence = Documented; acceptance evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; assigned owner = Documented; assigned owner evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; maintenance budget = Documented; maintenance budget evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; handover conditions = Documented; handover conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Asset = Documented; Asset evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Asset: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-018DP29 | Outcome reporting Assess district programme outcomes with stated limitations Inputs and exampleIntervention group households receiving the stated district programme service within the same window before [%]; Intervention group households receiving the stated district programme service within the same window after [%]; Comparison group households receiving the stated district programme service within the same window before [%]; Comparison group households receiving the stated district programme service within the same window after [%]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (percentage points) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — outcome reporting. Intervention group households receiving the stated district programme service within the same window before = 42 %; Intervention group households receiving the stated district programme service within the same window after = 59 %; Comparison group households receiving the stated district programme service within the same window before = 39 %; Comparison group households receiving the stated district programme service within the same window after = 46 %; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Fictional measure: Households receiving the stated district programme service within the same window / matching frame, method and before-after windows. Results: Difference in changes = 10 percentage points. Changed input. Change Intervention group households receiving the stated district programme service within the same window before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 percentage points. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Intervention group households receiving the stated district programme service within the same window before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. This named fictional indicator illustrates the calculation. Design evidence, adverse effects and attribution remain separate; a difference in changes does not establish causation. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP29-019DP29 | Geographic consistency Resolve district reporting boundary and code mismatches Inputs and exampleSource geography; Source geography evidence reference; official code; official code evidence reference; boundary edition; boundary edition evidence reference; period; period evidence reference; crosswalk evidence; crosswalk evidence evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — geographic consistency. Source geography = Missing; Source geography evidence reference = ; official code = Documented; official code evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; boundary edition = Documented; boundary edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; period = Documented; period evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; crosswalk evidence = Documented; crosswalk evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Source geography = Documented; Source geography evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Source geography: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP29-020DP29 | Inter-agency decisions Close district coordination cases with unmet dependencies Inputs and exampleCase and version; Case and version evidence reference; Open inter-agency dependencies; Open inter-agency dependencies evidence reference; Responsible institutional roles; Responsible institutional roles evidence reference; Completion evidence; Completion evidence evidence reference; Unresolved conditions; Unresolved conditions evidence reference; Closure authority; Closure authority evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — inter-agency decisions. Case and version = Missing; Case and version evidence reference = ; Open inter-agency dependencies = Documented; Open inter-agency dependencies evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Responsible institutional roles = Documented; Responsible institutional roles evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Completion evidence = Documented; Completion evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Unresolved conditions = Documented; Unresolved conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Closure authority = Documented; Closure authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Case and version = Documented; Case and version evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Case and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. District planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-001DP30 | Administrative applications Clear applications awaiting divisional administrative action Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — administrative applications. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-002DP30 | Service standards Address divisional services exceeding approved response targets Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service standards. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-003DP30 | Programme gaps Target reported local programme-support gaps Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — programme gaps. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-004DP30 | Grama Niladhari returns Follow up incomplete village-level reports Inputs and exampleExpected observations in the window [observations]; Distinct valid observations [observations]; Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval [days] Result: Completeness; Age of latest observation; Missing observations (%; days; observations) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — grama niladhari returns. Expected observations in the window = 30 observations; Distinct valid observations = 24 observations; Latest valid observation = 2025-06-28; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Required observation interval = 1 days. Results: Completeness = 80 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 6 observations. Changed input. Change Expected observations in the window = 31. Result: Completeness = 77.419 %; Age of latest observation = 2 days; Missing observations = 7 observations. Check overdue observation. Missing input. Omit Expected observations in the window: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FRESHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-005DP30 | State-land referrals Prepare complete land cases for the competent authority Inputs and exampleParcel; Parcel evidence reference; applicant; applicant evidence reference; rights evidence; rights evidence evidence reference; survey; survey evidence reference; current rules; current rules evidence reference; objections; objections evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — state-land referrals. Parcel = Missing; Parcel evidence reference = ; applicant = Documented; applicant evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rights evidence = Documented; rights evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; survey = Documented; survey evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current rules = Documented; current rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; objections = Documented; objections evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Parcel = Documented; Parcel evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Parcel: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S29, S30, S38 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP30-006DP30 | Disaster relief Prioritize verified local relief needs and avoid duplicate claims Inputs and examplePermitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit Result: Overlapping days (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — disaster relief. Permitted recipient/service reference = Laggala Pallegama — disaster relief; 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. Results: Overlapping days = 61 days. Changed input. Change Other support period begins = 2025-01-01; Other support period ends = 2025-06-30. Result: Overlapping days = 181 days. Review possible overlap. Missing input. Omit Permitted recipient/service reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPEATImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-007DP30 | Social-service referrals Route complete welfare cases to the responsible programme Inputs and exampleApplicant evidence; Applicant evidence evidence reference; programme rules; programme rules evidence reference; consent; consent evidence reference; current support; current support evidence reference; referral status; referral status evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — social-service referrals. Applicant evidence = Missing; Applicant evidence evidence reference = ; programme rules = Documented; programme rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; consent = Documented; consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current support = Documented; current support evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; referral status = Documented; referral status evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Applicant evidence = Documented; Applicant evidence evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Applicant evidence: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S29, S30, S38 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP30-008DP30 | Certificate services Identify document-verification gaps delaying certificates Inputs and exampleRequest; Request evidence reference; required evidence; required evidence evidence reference; verification; verification evidence reference; authorized issuer; authorized issuer evidence reference; receipt; receipt evidence reference; due date; due date evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — certificate services. Request = Missing; Request evidence reference = ; required evidence = Documented; required evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; verification = Documented; verification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; authorized issuer = Documented; authorized issuer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; receipt = Documented; receipt evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; due date = Documented; due date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Request = Documented; Request evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Request: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-009DP30 | Local development Compare village-development proposals Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Community water-service repair. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional community water-service repair option: compare the documented Needs, beneficiaries.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-010DP30 | Community consultation Resolve local objections before administrative determination Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community consultation. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-011DP30 | Field inspections Schedule required inspections efficiently Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — field inspections. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-012DP30 | Financial assistance Reconcile approved assistance with disbursement evidence Inputs and exampleApproved financing need [LKR]; Confirmed commitments [LKR]; Funds actually disbursed [LKR]; Verified eligible expenditure [LKR] Result: Unfunded need; Committed but not disbursed; Disbursed but not spent (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — financial assistance. 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. Results: Unfunded need = 850,000 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Approved financing need = 3,500,001. Result: Unfunded need = 850,001 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Review unfunded need. Missing input. Omit Approved financing need: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep commitments, cash receipts, expenditure and verified physical outputs separate. Negative balances flag overcommitment or reconciliation; no automatic accounting adjustment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FUNDINGImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-013DP30 | Service inclusion Identify underserved villages and eligible groups Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service inclusion. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-014DP30 | Citizen complaints Assign unresolved local complaints to accountable offices Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — citizen complaints. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-015DP30 | Project monitoring Verify local works against approved scope Inputs and exampleApproved drain-repair length in this sample scope [m of the stated drain repair]; Matching drain length with accepted inspection evidence [m of the stated drain repair] Result: Difference; Relative change (m of the stated drain repair; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — project monitoring. Approved drain-repair length in this sample scope = 450 m of the stated drain repair; Matching drain length with accepted inspection evidence = 420 m of the stated drain repair. Results: Difference = -30 m of the stated drain repair; Relative change = -6.667 %. Changed input. Change Approved drain-repair length in this sample scope = 451. Result: Difference = -31 m of the stated drain repair; Relative change = -6.874 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Approved drain-repair length in this sample scope: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits This fictional work example uses metres of a single stated drain-repair specification. It does not combine unequal work packages or grant acceptance. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-016DP30 | Public assets Prioritize maintenance referrals for local public assets Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — public assets. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-017DP30 | Data reconciliation Resolve contradictory household and land records Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — data reconciliation. Original source value/definition = Permitted identifiers: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Permitted identifiers: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-018DP30 | Office workload Allocate staff to service desks with capacity shortages Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [staff hours]; Rated capacity for that period [staff hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [staff hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (staff hours; staff hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — office workload. Demand in the selected period = 150 staff hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 staff hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 staff hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 staff hours; Usable capacity = 135 staff hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-019DP30 | Local reporting Correct missing context in divisional statistical returns Inputs and exampleIndicator; Indicator evidence reference; source; source evidence reference; unit; unit evidence reference; geography; geography evidence reference; period; period evidence reference; reviewer; reviewer evidence reference; revision; revision evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — local reporting. Indicator = Missing; Indicator evidence reference = ; source = Documented; source evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; unit = Documented; unit evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; geography = Documented; geography evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; period = Documented; period evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; reviewer = Documented; reviewer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; revision = Documented; revision evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Indicator = Documented; Indicator evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Indicator: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP30-020DP30 | Referral completion Track cases through responsible institutions to documented outcomes Inputs and exampleDistinct original divisional service area in the stated cohort [cases]; Those original cohort members with documented review [cases]; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition [cases]; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — referral completion. Distinct original divisional service area in the stated cohort = 180 cases; Those original cohort members with documented review = 132 cases; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition = 96 cases; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown = 12 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct original divisional service area in the stated cohort = 181. Result: Verified completion share = 53.039 %; Not verified complete = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct original divisional service area in the stated cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Divisional planning/service officer and relevant sector specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-001DP31 | Field reporting Submit overdue required village reports Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — field reporting. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-002DP31 | Community observations Identify households needing consented follow-up or referral Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community observations. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-003DP31 | Case corrections Resolve incomplete or inconsistent village case reports Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — case corrections. Original source value/definition = Case ID: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Case ID: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-004DP31 | Asset locations Verify missing or uncertain locations of community assets Inputs and exampleMeasured separation between reported locations [m]; Reported source positional accuracy [m]; Reported comparison positional accuracy [m]; Coordinate reference and transformation evidence Result: Location separation (m) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — asset locations. Measured separation between reported locations = 32 m; Reported source positional accuracy = 10 m; Reported comparison positional accuracy = 15 m; Coordinate reference and transformation evidence = Sample matching CRS; transformation check required. Results: Location separation = 32 m. Changed input. Change Measured separation between reported locations = 32.32. Result: Location separation = 32.32 m. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Measured separation between reported locations: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-005DP31 | Disaster impacts Prioritize rapid verification of local disaster impacts Inputs and exampleEvent; Event evidence reference; household reference; household reference evidence reference; observed damage; observed damage evidence reference; date; date evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; assessment protocol; assessment protocol evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — disaster impacts. Event = Missing; Event evidence reference = ; household reference = Documented; household reference evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; observed damage = Documented; observed damage evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; date = Documented; date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; location = Documented; location evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; assessment protocol = Documented; assessment protocol evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Event = Documented; Event evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Event: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-006DP31 | Relief referrals Prepare evidence for authorized relief decisions Inputs and exampleHousehold; Household evidence reference; verified impact; verified impact evidence reference; scheme rules; scheme rules evidence reference; documents; documents evidence reference; existing support; existing support evidence reference; consent; consent evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — relief referrals. Household = Missing; Household evidence reference = ; verified impact = Documented; verified impact evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; scheme rules = Documented; scheme rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; documents = Documented; documents evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; existing support = Documented; existing support evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; consent = Documented; consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Household = Documented; Household evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Household: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S29, S38, S39 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP31-007DP31 | Duplicate assistance Flag possible repeated assistance for divisional review Inputs and examplePermitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit Result: Overlapping days (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — duplicate assistance. Permitted recipient/service reference = Laggala Pallegama — duplicate assistance; 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. Results: Overlapping days = 61 days. Changed input. Change Other support period begins = 2025-01-01; Other support period ends = 2025-06-30. Result: Overlapping days = 181 days. Review possible overlap. Missing input. Omit Permitted recipient/service reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPEATImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-008DP31 | Household updates Schedule verification of reported household changes Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — household updates. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-009DP31 | Certificate evidence Check required evidence before referring certificate requests Inputs and exampleRequest; Request evidence reference; documentary evidence; documentary evidence evidence reference; verification; verification evidence reference; current criteria; current criteria evidence reference; authorized issuer; authorized issuer evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — certificate evidence. Request = Missing; Request evidence reference = ; documentary evidence = Documented; documentary evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; verification = Documented; verification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current criteria = Documented; current criteria evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; authorized issuer = Documented; authorized issuer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Request = Documented; Request evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Request: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-010DP31 | Vulnerable residents Refer unmet needs through approved support channels Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — vulnerable residents. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-011DP31 | Community complaints Escalate unresolved local complaints within jurisdiction Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community complaints. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-012DP31 | Public warnings Identify residents missing authorized emergency messages Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — public warnings. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-013DP31 | Community meetings Ensure relevant residents can participate in consultations Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community meetings. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-014DP31 | Local infrastructure Refer damaged public assets to responsible maintainers Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — local infrastructure. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-015DP31 | Land observations Report land-use concerns without making ownership determinations Inputs and exampleConcern and dated observation; Concern and dated observation evidence reference; Broad location and source; Broad location and source evidence reference; Uncertainty and factual evidence; Uncertainty and factual evidence evidence reference; Relevant source boundary if applicable; Relevant source boundary if applicable evidence reference; Permitted referral recipient; Permitted referral recipient evidence reference; Referral protocol and rights limitations; Referral protocol and rights limitations evidence reference; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence; Area/count source and matching definition reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land observations. Concern and dated observation = Missing; Concern and dated observation evidence reference = ; Broad location and source = Documented; Broad location and source evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Uncertainty and factual evidence = Documented; Uncertainty and factual evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Relevant source boundary if applicable = Documented; Relevant source boundary if applicable evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Permitted referral recipient = Documented; Permitted referral recipient evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Referral protocol and rights limitations = Documented; Referral protocol and rights limitations evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Matching source frame, boundary and period evidence = Provided; Area/count source and matching definition reference = Fictional matched survey return / edition 1. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Concern and dated observation = Documented; Concern and dated observation evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Concern and dated observation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. A static reference image does not verify these supplied measurements or boundaries. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OVERLAYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-016DP31 | Field visits Plan feasible household and site follow-up routes Inputs and exampleSupplied journey distance from a documented route survey [km]; Supplied journey duration; not calculated here [minutes]; Usable vehicle/team capacity [units]; Required capacity [units]; Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window Result: Estimated travel time; Capacity minus demand (minutes; units) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — field visits. 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. Results: Estimated travel time = 65 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Changed input. Change Supplied journey duration; not calculated here = 75. Result: Estimated travel time = 75 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Resolve access/capacity evidence. Missing input. Omit Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ROUTEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-017DP31 | Programme follow-up Track referrals to verified service outcomes Inputs and exampleDistinct original village service case in the stated cohort [cases]; Those original cohort members with documented review [cases]; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition [cases]; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — programme follow-up. Distinct original village service case in the stated cohort = 180 cases; Those original cohort members with documented review = 132 cases; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition = 96 cases; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown = 12 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct original village service case in the stated cohort = 181. Result: Verified completion share = 53.039 %; Not verified complete = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct original village service case in the stated cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-018DP31 | Record privacy Check permitted use before sharing household information Inputs and exampleFields; Fields evidence reference; purpose; purpose evidence reference; consent or lawful basis; consent or lawful basis evidence reference; recipient; recipient evidence reference; scope; scope evidence reference; approval; approval evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — record privacy. Fields = Missing; Fields evidence reference = ; purpose = Documented; purpose evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; consent or lawful basis = Documented; consent or lawful basis evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; recipient = Documented; recipient evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; scope = Documented; scope evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approval = Documented; approval evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Fields = Documented; Fields evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Fields: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-019DP31 | Boundary codes Correct local records assigned to inconsistent geographic codes Inputs and exampleRecord location; Record location evidence reference; official GN code; official GN code evidence reference; boundary edition; boundary edition evidence reference; source date; source date evidence reference; crosswalk; crosswalk evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — boundary codes. Record location = Missing; Record location evidence reference = ; official GN code = Documented; official GN code evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; boundary edition = Documented; boundary edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source date = Documented; source date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; crosswalk = Documented; crosswalk evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Record location = Documented; Record location evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Record location: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP31-020DP31 | Service feedback Identify recurring local service problems from feedback Inputs and exampleDistinct feedback cases in category [cases]; Cases still unresolved [cases]; Feedback service/category Result: Feedback case count; Share of recorded feedback (cases; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Water supply. Distinct feedback cases in category = 18 cases; Cases still unresolved = 5 cases; Feedback service/category = Water supply. Results: Feedback case count = 18 cases; Share of recorded feedback = 32.727 %. Changed input. Change Distinct feedback cases in category = 19. Result: Feedback case count = 19 cases; Share of recorded feedback = 33.929 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct feedback cases in category: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. total = 55; hhi = 0.207 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Grama Niladhari officer with divisional supervisor and relevant service reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COMPOSITIONImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-001DP32 | Land use Coordinate support for underused member farmland Inputs and exampleCultivable hectares in the stated eligible command frame [ha]; Matching hectares currently cultivated [ha]; Hectares whose cultivation status is unknown [ha] Result: Cultivated share; Known uncultivated hectares; Unknown coverage (%; ha; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — land use. Cultivable hectares in the stated eligible command frame = 100 ha; Matching hectares currently cultivated = 65 ha; Hectares whose cultivation status is unknown = 5 ha. Results: Cultivated share = 65 %; Known uncultivated hectares = 30 ha; Unknown coverage = 5 ha. Changed input. Change Cultivable hectares in the stated eligible command frame = 101. Result: Cultivated share = 64.356 %; Known uncultivated hectares = 31 ha; Unknown coverage = 5 ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Cultivable hectares in the stated eligible command frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Cultivation status does not establish tenure, irrigation reliability or suitability for expansion. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-002DP32 | Support fairness Review potentially overlapping assistance to members Inputs and examplePermitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit Result: Overlapping days (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — support fairness. Permitted recipient/service reference = Laggala Pallegama — support fairness; 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. Results: Overlapping days = 61 days. Changed input. Change Other support period begins = 2025-01-01; Other support period ends = 2025-06-30. Result: Overlapping days = 181 days. Review possible overlap. Missing input. Omit Permitted recipient/service reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPEATImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-003DP32 | Irrigation requests Prepare evidence-based seasonal water requests Inputs and exampleIrrigated crop area [ha]; Reference evapotranspiration [mm/day]; Crop coefficient [ratio]; Rainfall reaching the field after runoff [mm/day]; Deep percolation and paddy allowance [mm/day]; Capillary contribution [mm/day]; Desired change in stored soil water [mm/day]; Field application efficiency [fraction] Result: Gross daily irrigation requirement; Net field requirement (m³/day; mm/day) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — irrigation requests. Irrigated crop area = 85 ha; Reference evapotranspiration = 4.5 mm/day; Crop coefficient = 1.1 ratio; Rainfall reaching the field after runoff = 1.6 mm/day; Deep percolation and paddy allowance = 2 mm/day; Capillary contribution = 0 mm/day; Desired change in stored soil water = 0 mm/day; Field application efficiency = 0.68 fraction. Results: Gross daily irrigation requirement = 6,687.5 m³/day; Net field requirement = 5.35 mm/day. Changed input. Change Irrigated crop area = 85.85. Result: Gross daily irrigation requirement = 6,754.375 m³/day; Net field requirement = 5.35 mm/day. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Irrigated crop area: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The full local balance, rooting depth, stress, crop stage and operating constraints still matter. The paddy allowance is explicit and must be zero where inapplicable. This is not an authorized reservoir release. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Crop evapotranspiration ETc component Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Chapter 5, Crop coefficient approach, equation 56 Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations WATERImplementation: prototype |
| DEC-DP32-004DP32 | Service coordination Escalate overdue collective farming requests Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service coordination. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-005DP32 | Water rotations Propose workable water rotations for member areas Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — water rotations. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-006DP32 | Tail-end equity Investigate unequal delivery against agreed allocations Inputs and examplePlanned value [m³]; Observed value [m³] Result: Difference; Relative change (m³; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — tail-end equity. Planned value = 100 m³; Observed value = 90 m³. Results: Difference = -10 m³; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Planned value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 m³; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-007DP32 | Collective inputs Plan joint input purchases against verified member demand Inputs and examplePhysical stock [kg input]; Quarantined stock [kg input]; Expired stock [kg input]; Committed usable stock [kg input]; Additional demand [kg input]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days] Result: Uncommitted usable stock; Additional demand gap (kg input; kg input) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — collective inputs. Physical stock = 1,200 kg input; Quarantined stock = 100 kg input; Expired stock = 50 kg input; Committed usable stock = 740 kg input; Additional demand = 500 kg input; Supplier lead time = 14 days; Remaining shelf life of usable stock = 30 days. Results: Uncommitted usable stock = 310 kg input; Additional demand gap = 190 kg input. Changed input. Change Physical stock = 1,201. Result: Uncommitted usable stock = 311 kg input; Additional demand gap = 189 kg input. Review replenishment gap. Missing input. Omit Physical stock: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INVENTORYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-008DP32 | Collective marketing Match aggregated produce with verified buyer requirements Inputs and exampleOffered product and grade; Required product and grade; Available uncommitted quantity [kg]; Required quantity [kg]; Supply available from; Supply available until; Delivery window begins; Delivery window ends; Required quality, rights and conditions Result: Supply minus demand (kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — collective marketing. Offered product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Required product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Available uncommitted quantity = 1,200 kg; Required quantity = 1,500 kg; Supply available from = 2025-06-01; Supply available until = 2025-06-20; Delivery window begins = 2025-06-05; Delivery window ends = 2025-06-18; Required quality, rights and conditions = Met. Results: Supply minus demand = -300 kg. Changed input. Change Available uncommitted quantity = 1,201. Result: Supply minus demand = -299 kg. Review quantity/capacity gap. Missing input. Omit Offered product and grade: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-009DP32 | Machinery sharing Allocate shared machinery without conflicting reservations Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — machinery sharing. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-010DP32 | Irrigation upkeep Prioritize common tank and canal maintenance requests Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — irrigation upkeep. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-011DP32 | Group finance Reconcile organization receipts expenses and balances Inputs and exampleOpening cash/receivable balance [LKR]; Receipts and documented additions [LKR]; Payments and documented reductions [LKR]; Other documented non-overlapping adjustments [LKR]; Independently recorded closing balance [LKR] Result: Calculated closing balance; Recorded minus calculated closing (LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — group finance. Opening cash/receivable balance = 160,000 LKR; Receipts and documented additions = 48,000 LKR; Payments and documented reductions = 35,000 LKR; Other documented non-overlapping adjustments = 9,000 LKR; Independently recorded closing balance = 163,500 LKR. Results: Calculated closing balance = 164,000 LKR; Recorded minus calculated closing = -500 LKR. Changed input. Change Opening cash/receivable balance = 160,001. Result: Calculated closing balance = 164,001 LKR; Recorded minus calculated closing = -501 LKR. Reconcile closing balance. Missing input. Omit Opening cash/receivable balance: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use the same physical boundary, period and units. A residual is a reconciliation issue, not automatically a measured loss. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-012DP32 | Membership Resolve inconsistent or duplicate member records Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — membership. Original source value/definition = Member identifier: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Member identifier: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-013DP32 | Governance Address missing meetings audits and required disclosures Inputs and exampleRules; Rules evidence reference; meeting records; meeting records evidence reference; election evidence; election evidence evidence reference; audit findings; audit findings evidence reference; approved obligations; approved obligations evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — governance. Rules = Missing; Rules evidence reference = ; meeting records = Documented; meeting records evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; election evidence = Documented; election evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; audit findings = Documented; audit findings evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approved obligations = Documented; approved obligations evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Rules = Documented; Rules evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Rules: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-014DP32 | Training Target member training to verified skill gaps Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [members]; Distinct members of that frame covered [members]; Frame members with unknown coverage [members] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; members; members) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — training. Required eligible frame = 100 members; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 members; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 members. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 members; Unknown coverage = 5 members. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 members; Unknown coverage = 5 members. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-015DP32 | Drought plans Compare collective responses to forecast water shortages Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Revise the agreed crop calendar. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional revise the agreed crop calendar option: compare the documented Approved forecasts, available water.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-016DP32 | Crop-loss evidence Coordinate verification of shared crop-damage reports Inputs and exampleEvent; Event evidence reference; member plot; member plot evidence reference; damaged hectares; damaged hectares evidence reference; crop stage; crop stage evidence reference; inspection; inspection evidence reference; claim reference; claim reference evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — crop-loss evidence. Event = Missing; Event evidence reference = ; member plot = Documented; member plot evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; damaged hectares = Documented; damaged hectares evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; crop stage = Documented; crop stage evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection = Documented; inspection evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; claim reference = Documented; claim reference evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Event = Documented; Event evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Event: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-017DP32 | Storage Compare collective storage and handling investments Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP32-018DP32 | Participation Resolve member objections to collective plans Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — participation. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-019DP32 | Member communication Follow up members missing agreed information updates Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [members]; Distinct members of that frame covered [members]; Frame members with unknown coverage [members] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; members; members) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — member communication. Required eligible frame = 100 members; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 members; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 members. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 members; Unknown coverage = 5 members. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 members; Unknown coverage = 5 members. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP32-020DP32 | Collective outcomes Evaluate benefits and costs of group farming services Inputs and exampleTreatment Member enterprise gross margin before [LKR/ha]; Treatment Member enterprise gross margin after [LKR/ha]; Comparison Member enterprise gross margin before [LKR/ha]; Comparison Member enterprise gross margin after [LKR/ha]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (LKR/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — collective outcomes. Treatment Member enterprise gross margin before = 420,000 LKR/ha; Treatment Member enterprise gross margin after = 590,000 LKR/ha; Comparison Member enterprise gross margin before = 390,000 LKR/ha; Comparison Member enterprise gross margin after = 460,000 LKR/ha; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Member enterprise gross margin /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 100,000 LKR/ha. Changed input. Change Treatment Member enterprise gross margin before = 420,001. Result: Difference in changes = 99,999 LKR/ha. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Member enterprise gross margin before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP33-001DP33 | Farm profitability Choose crops using transparent enterprise gross margins Inputs and exampleSaleable output [kg]; Realized price [LKR/kg]; Variable costs [LKR]; Matching crop area [ha]; Crop and saleable-output basis Result: Enterprise gross margin; Gross margin per hectare; Variable-cost break-even price (LKR; LKR/ha; LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — farm profitability. Saleable output = 4,500 kg; Realized price = 110 LKR/kg; Variable costs = 360,000 LKR; Matching crop area = 1 ha; Crop and saleable-output basis = Paddy rough rice / fictional one-hectare crop enterprise / same season. Results: Enterprise gross margin = 135,000 LKR; Gross margin per hectare = 135,000 LKR/ha; Variable-cost break-even price = 80 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Saleable output = 4,501. Result: Enterprise gross margin = 135,110 LKR; Gross margin per hectare = 135,110 LKR/ha; Variable-cost break-even price = 79.982 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Saleable output: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep fixed costs, family-labour opportunity cost, taxes and financing identifiable. Gross margin is not net profit. Crop, prices and costs are fictional coherent enterprise assumptions. Gross margin excludes fixed and financing costs; it is not household income or net profit. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Enterprise gross margin Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Chapter 4, Gross margin and section 4.7.1 Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations MARGINImplementation: prototype Method source: S76 |
| DEC-DP33-002DP33 | Irrigation planning Plan irrigation needs for the proposed crop season Inputs and exampleIrrigated crop area [ha]; Reference evapotranspiration [mm/day]; Crop coefficient [ratio]; Rainfall reaching the field after runoff [mm/day]; Deep percolation and paddy allowance [mm/day]; Capillary contribution [mm/day]; Desired change in stored soil water [mm/day]; Field application efficiency [fraction]; Crop, stage and balance assumptions; Number of days at this stated constant balance [days] Result: Gross daily irrigation requirement; Net field requirement; Volume for this constant-balance stage (m³/day; mm/day; m³) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — irrigation planning. Irrigated crop area = 1.2 ha; Reference evapotranspiration = 4.5 mm/day; Crop coefficient = 1.1 ratio; Rainfall reaching the field after runoff = 1.6 mm/day; Deep percolation and paddy allowance = 2 mm/day; Capillary contribution = 0 mm/day; Desired change in stored soil water = 0 mm/day; Field application efficiency = 0.68 fraction; Crop, stage and balance assumptions = Fictional paddy mid-season stage / constant daily balance for seven days; Number of days at this stated constant balance = 7 days. Results: Gross daily irrigation requirement = 94.412 m³/day; Net field requirement = 5.35 mm/day; Volume for this constant-balance stage = 660.882 m³. Changed input. Change Irrigated crop area = 1.212. Result: Gross daily irrigation requirement = 95.356 m³/day; Net field requirement = 5.35 mm/day; Volume for this constant-balance stage = 667.491 m³. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Irrigated crop area: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The full local balance, rooting depth, stress, crop stage and operating constraints still matter. The paddy allowance is explicit and must be zero where inapplicable. This is not an authorized reservoir release. This farm example is one seven-day stage, not a whole-season release plan. Rainfall, coefficient, percolation and efficiency are fictional assumptions. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Crop evapotranspiration ETc component Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Chapter 5, Crop coefficient approach, equation 56 Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations WATERImplementation: prototype |
| DEC-DP33-003DP33 | Harvest losses Identify handling stages causing verified crop losses Inputs and exampleBatch input on stated moisture basis [kg]; Saleable output [kg]; Usable by-product [kg]; Closing stock [kg]; Documented transfers out [kg] Result: Unaccounted physical share; Unaccounted mass (%; kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — harvest losses. Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,200 kg; Saleable output = 970 kg; Usable by-product = 85 kg; Closing stock = 45 kg; Documented transfers out = 20 kg. Results: Unaccounted physical share = 6.667 %; Unaccounted mass = 80 kg. Changed input. Change Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,201. Result: Unaccounted physical share = 6.744 %; Unaccounted mass = 81 kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Batch input on stated moisture basis: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use a consistent moisture basis and process boundary. Unaccounted mass is not automatically avoidable food loss or spoilage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required LOSSImplementation: prototype Method source: S57 |
| DEC-DP33-004DP33 | Planting dates Adjust planned planting against crop calendar and advice Inputs and examplePlanned milestone/sowing date; Observed completion/sowing date Result: Calendar date difference (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — planting dates. Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-06-01; Observed completion/sowing date = 2025-06-09. Results: Calendar date difference = 8 days. Changed input. Change Planned milestone/sowing date = 2025-05-31. Result: Calendar date difference = 9 days. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned milestone/sowing date: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP33-005DP33 | Crop choice Compare suitable crop and variety alternatives Inputs and exampleSoil; Soil evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; water; water evidence reference; variety requirements; variety requirements evidence reference; market demand; market demand evidence reference; farm constraints; farm constraints evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — crop choice. Soil = Missing; Soil evidence reference = ; rainfall = Documented; rainfall evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; water = Documented; water evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; variety requirements = Documented; variety requirements evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; market demand = Documented; market demand evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; farm constraints = Documented; farm constraints evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Soil = Documented; Soil evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Soil: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP33-006DP33 | Input budgeting Plan affordable crop inputs with actual cost assumptions Inputs and exampleLabour cost [LKR]; Material/input cost [LKR]; Other non-overlapping cost [LKR]; Verified matching hectares [ha]; Funds available for these same crop-input costs [LKR] Result: Cost per matching unit; Total cost; Cost beyond the stated funds (LKR/ha; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — input budgeting. Labour cost = 110,000 LKR; Material/input cost = 190,000 LKR; Other non-overlapping cost = 25,000 LKR; Verified matching hectares = 1.2 ha; Funds available for these same crop-input costs = 300,000 LKR. Results: Cost per matching unit = 270,833.333 LKR/ha; Total cost = 325,000 LKR; Cost beyond the stated funds = 25,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Labour cost = 110,001. Result: Cost per matching unit = 270,834.167 LKR/ha; Total cost = 325,001 LKR; Cost beyond the stated funds = 25,001 LKR. Review the funding shortfall before buying inputs. Missing input. Omit Labour cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COSTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP33-007DP33 | Cash needs Identify seasonal cash shortages before commitments Inputs and exampleCash available before the first dated event [LKR]; Crop-input payment date; Crop-input payment [LKR]; Other crop-operation payment date; Other crop-operation payment [LKR]; Harvest-sale receipt date; Harvest-sale receipt [LKR] Result: Minimum projected cash; Maximum projected cash shortfall; Projected closing cash (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Crop-input payment cash-plan scenario. Cash available before the first dated event = 100,000 LKR; Crop-input payment date = 2025-06-01; Crop-input payment = 250,000 LKR; Other crop-operation payment date = 2025-06-08; Other crop-operation payment = 50,000 LKR; Harvest-sale receipt date = 2025-06-25; Harvest-sale receipt = 380,000 LKR. Results: Minimum projected cash = -200,000 LKR; Maximum projected cash shortfall = 200,000 LKR; Projected closing cash = 180,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Cash available before the first dated event = 100,001. Result: Minimum projected cash = -199,999 LKR; Maximum projected cash shortfall = 199,999 LKR; Projected closing cash = 180,001 LKR. Review funding and payment timing before committing. Missing input. Omit Cash available before the first dated event: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits These are dated fictional cash assumptions, not actual bank balances or a credit recommendation. A positive closing balance can conceal an earlier shortage. Same-day receipt/payment ordering needs evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP33-008DP33 | Soil advice Seek reviewed nutrient advice using valid soil tests Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [mg/kg]; Example lower comparison bound [mg/kg]; Example upper comparison bound [mg/kg]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (mg/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — soil advice. Parameter and applicable use = Available phosphorus by stated method; Measured result = 12 mg/kg; Example lower comparison bound = 15 mg/kg; Example upper comparison bound = 30 mg/kg; Original and limit unit = mg/kg; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 12 mg/kg. Changed input. Change Measured result = 12.12. Result: Measured value = 12.12 mg/kg. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP33-009DP33 | Pest diagnosis Decide when to request specialist pest or disease diagnosis Inputs and exampleObserved symptoms; Observed symptoms evidence reference; crop stage; crop stage evidence reference; spread; spread evidence reference; photographs; photographs evidence reference; advisory criteria; advisory criteria evidence reference; date; date evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — pest diagnosis. Observed symptoms = Missing; Observed symptoms evidence reference = ; crop stage = Documented; crop stage evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; spread = Documented; spread evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; photographs = Documented; photographs evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; advisory criteria = Documented; advisory criteria evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; date = Documented; date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Observed symptoms = Documented; Observed symptoms evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Observed symptoms: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP33-010DP33 | Safe crop protection Check proposed treatments against current authorized guidance Inputs and exampleProduct; Product evidence reference; crop; crop evidence reference; pest; pest evidence reference; registration; registration evidence reference; label version; label version evidence reference; restrictions; restrictions evidence reference; adviser recommendation; adviser recommendation evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — safe crop protection. Product = Missing; Product evidence reference = ; crop = Documented; crop evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; pest = Documented; pest evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; registration = Documented; registration evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; label version = Documented; label version evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; restrictions = Documented; restrictions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; adviser recommendation = Documented; adviser recommendation evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Product = Documented; Product evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Product: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, DD-PESTICIDES, S03, S04, S31 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP33-011DP33 | Seed purchase Select seed lots with verified suitability and quality evidence Inputs and exampleVariety; Variety evidence reference; lot ID; lot ID evidence reference; certification; certification evidence reference; germination; germination evidence reference; expiry; expiry evidence reference; required quantity; required quantity evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — seed purchase. Variety = Missing; Variety evidence reference = ; lot ID = Documented; lot ID evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; certification = Documented; certification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; germination = Documented; germination evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; expiry = Documented; expiry evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; required quantity = Documented; required quantity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Variety = Documented; Variety evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Variety: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP33-012DP33 | Labour planning Schedule available labour around critical crop operations Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — labour planning. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP33-013DP33 | Machinery choice Compare hiring and ownership of farm machinery Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%]; Common machinery-service basis for all three choices Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Own the stated machinery. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = -240,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = -240,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = -240,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = -240,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = -240,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 800,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %; Common machinery-service basis for all three choices = Fictional 40 matching service-hours each year / same task, timing and capacity. Results: Five-year net present value = -2,813,783.851 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = -2,813,784.851 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. The three fictional choices provide the same stated service. Compare discounted costs alongside access, repair capacity and timing; this does not select a machine or arrange finance. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP33-014DP33 | Selling decisions Compare buyer offers after costs and quality differences Inputs and exampleBuyer or offer reference; Product, grade and weighing basis; Quoted buyer price [LKR/initial kg]; Non-overlapping transfer and handling cost [LKR/initial kg]; Assumed mass not retained for sale [%]; Stated delivery date; Stated payment date; Matching grade, weighing basis and terms evidenced in this example; Quotation, grade and terms reference Result: Net receipt per initial kilogram; Quoted headline price (LKR/initial kg; LKR/initial kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Matale collection-point offer scenario. Buyer or offer reference = Matale collection-point offer scenario; Product, grade and weighing basis = Tomato / same stated grade / per initial kilogram; Quoted buyer price = 225 LKR/initial kg; Non-overlapping transfer and handling cost = 15 LKR/initial kg; Assumed mass not retained for sale = 5 %; Stated delivery date = 2025-06-25; Stated payment date = 2025-06-30; Matching grade, weighing basis and terms evidenced in this example = Recorded; Quotation, grade and terms reference = Fictional quotation and specification / version 1. Results: Net receipt per initial kilogram = 198.75 LKR/initial kg; Quoted headline price = 225 LKR/initial kg. Changed input. Change Quoted buyer price = 226. Result: Net receipt per initial kilogram = 199.7 LKR/initial kg; Quoted headline price = 226 LKR/initial kg. Compare the stated price result and payment terms. Missing input. Omit Buyer or offer reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Quotes, loss assumptions and costs are fictional. Compare matching grades, weighing bases, payment timing and terms. The result does not authorize a purchase, sale, financing or supply agreement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required PRICEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP33-015DP33 | Buyer matching Identify feasible buyers for available produce Inputs and exampleOffered product and grade; Required product and grade; Available uncommitted quantity [kg]; Required quantity [kg]; Supply available from; Supply available until; Delivery window begins; Delivery window ends; Required quality, rights and conditions Result: Supply minus demand (kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — buyer matching. Offered product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Required product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Available uncommitted quantity = 1,200 kg; Required quantity = 1,500 kg; Supply available from = 2025-06-01; Supply available until = 2025-06-20; Delivery window begins = 2025-06-05; Delivery window ends = 2025-06-18; Required quality, rights and conditions = Met. Results: Supply minus demand = -300 kg. Changed input. Change Available uncommitted quantity = 1,201. Result: Supply minus demand = -299 kg. Review quantity/capacity gap. Missing input. Omit Offered product and grade: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP33-016DP33 | Drought adaptation Compare feasible water-saving and crop-adaptation options Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Drip irrigation scenario. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional drip irrigation scenario option: compare the documented Farm exposure, water supply.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP33-017DP33 | Storage decisions Compare immediate sale with safe storage alternatives Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Sell the crop immediately. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional sell the crop immediately option: compare the documented Storage life, costs.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP33-018DP33 | Farm investment Appraise proposed farm improvements under realistic scenarios Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP33-019DP33 | Support applications Prepare complete evidence for relevant farmer-support schemes Inputs and exampleScheme criteria; Scheme criteria evidence reference; farm records; farm records evidence reference; identity consent; identity consent evidence reference; prior support; prior support evidence reference; required documents; required documents evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — support applications. Scheme criteria = Missing; Scheme criteria evidence reference = ; farm records = Documented; farm records evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; identity consent = Documented; identity consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; prior support = Documented; prior support evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; required documents = Documented; required documents evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Scheme criteria = Documented; Scheme criteria evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Scheme criteria: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S03, S04, S31 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP33-020DP33 | Farm recordkeeping Identify missing records needed for reliable farm analysis Inputs and examplePlot; Plot evidence reference; crop; crop evidence reference; dates; dates evidence reference; units; units evidence reference; purchases; purchases evidence reference; harvest; harvest evidence reference; sales; sales evidence reference; source documents; source documents evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — farm recordkeeping. Plot = Missing; Plot evidence reference = ; crop = Documented; crop evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; dates = Documented; dates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; units = Documented; units evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; purchases = Documented; purchases evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; harvest = Documented; harvest evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; sales = Documented; sales evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source documents = Documented; source documents evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Plot = Documented; Plot evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Plot: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-001DP34 | Production economics Target estate crop and seasonal cost drivers Inputs and exampleLabour cost [LKR]; Material/input cost [LKR]; Other non-overlapping cost [LKR]; Green-leaf output on the stated weighing basis [kg green leaf] Result: Cost per matching unit; Total cost (LKR/kg green leaf; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — production economics. Labour cost = 180,000 LKR; Material/input cost = 255,000 LKR; Other non-overlapping cost = 62,000 LKR; Green-leaf output on the stated weighing basis = 4,500 kg green leaf. Results: Cost per matching unit = 110.444 LKR/kg green leaf; Total cost = 497,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Labour cost = 180,001. Result: Cost per matching unit = 110.445 LKR/kg green leaf; Total cost = 497,001 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Labour cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable. The denominator is green leaf, not made tea. Compare the same moisture, weighing, cost and accounting-period basis. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COSTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-002DP34 | Soil and water Evaluate soil and water-management practice outcomes Inputs and exampleTreatment Measured runoff before [mm/season]; Treatment Measured runoff after [mm/season]; Comparison Measured runoff before [mm/season]; Comparison Measured runoff after [mm/season]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (mm/season) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — soil and water. Treatment Measured runoff before = 42 mm/season; Treatment Measured runoff after = 59 mm/season; Comparison Measured runoff before = 39 mm/season; Comparison Measured runoff after = 46 mm/season; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Measured runoff /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 10 mm/season. Changed input. Change Treatment Measured runoff before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 mm/season. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Measured runoff before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP34-003DP34 | Replanting areas Prioritize blocks for replanting or rehabilitation Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Rehabilitate productive retained plants. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional rehabilitate productive retained plants option: compare the documented Block age, yield.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-004DP34 | Worker services Address gaps in verified worker-support coverage Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [workers]; Distinct members of that frame covered [workers]; Frame members with unknown coverage [workers] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; workers; workers) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — worker services. Required eligible frame = 100 workers; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 workers; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 workers. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 workers; Unknown coverage = 5 workers. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 workers; Unknown coverage = 5 workers. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-005DP34 | Crop suitability Compare crops and cultivars for estate conditions Inputs and exampleSoil; Soil evidence reference; elevation; elevation evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; temperature; temperature evidence reference; shade; shade evidence reference; cultivar requirements; cultivar requirements evidence reference; restrictions; restrictions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — crop suitability. Soil = Missing; Soil evidence reference = ; elevation = Documented; elevation evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rainfall = Documented; rainfall evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; temperature = Documented; temperature evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; shade = Documented; shade evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; cultivar requirements = Documented; cultivar requirements evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; restrictions = Documented; restrictions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Soil = Documented; Soil evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Soil: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SUITABILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-006DP34 | Planting survival Target maintenance to weak new-planting cohorts Inputs and exampleOriginal cohort [plants]; Known surviving original members [plants]; Known failed original members [plants]; Original members with unknown follow-up [plants]; Replacements in a separate cohort [plants] Result: Confirmed survival lower bound; Survival upper bound; Unknown follow-up (%; %; plants) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — planting survival. Original cohort = 450 plants; Known surviving original members = 351 plants; Known failed original members = 70 plants; Original members with unknown follow-up = 29 plants; Replacements in a separate cohort = 18 plants. Results: Confirmed survival lower bound = 78 %; Survival upper bound = 84.444 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 plants. Changed input. Change Known surviving original members = 352; Known failed original members = 69. Result: Confirmed survival lower bound = 78.222 %; Survival upper bound = 84.667 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 plants. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SURVIVALImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-007DP34 | Erosion control Prioritize conservation treatment in vulnerable estate blocks Inputs and exampleRainfall erosivity [MJ mm/(ha h year)]; Soil erodibility [t ha h/(ha MJ mm)]; Slope-length and steepness factor [ratio]; Cover-management factor [fraction]; Support-practice factor [fraction] Result: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss (t/ha/year) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — erosion control. Rainfall erosivity = 950 MJ mm/(ha h year); Soil erodibility = 0.035 t ha h/(ha MJ mm); Slope-length and steepness factor = 2.8 ratio; Cover-management factor = 0.24 fraction; Support-practice factor = 0.7 fraction. Results: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss = 15.641 t/ha/year. Changed input. Change Rainfall erosivity = 951. Result: Estimated annual sheet/rill loss = 15.657 t/ha/year. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Rainfall erosivity: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits This USLE factor product is not a full RUSLE2 run, measured loss, delivered sediment, gully loss or landslide forecast. Local factors and uncertainty need review. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · USLE factor product United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service · 1980 technical publication SA-TP 11; Universal Soil Loss Equation, printed page 2; metric conversion appendix, printed page 40 Government publication - United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service EROSIONImplementation: prototype Method source: S80 |
| DEC-DP34-008DP34 | Harvest scheduling Plan harvesting around maturity weather and capacity Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — harvest scheduling. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-009DP34 | Pest management Refer unusual plantation pest and disease patterns Inputs and exampleReference affected plants per 100 inspected [affected plants per 100 inspected]; Observed affected plants per 100 inspected [affected plants per 100 inspected] Result: Difference; Relative change (affected plants per 100 inspected; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — pest management. Reference affected plants per 100 inspected = 12 affected plants per 100 inspected; Observed affected plants per 100 inspected = 18 affected plants per 100 inspected. Results: Difference = 6 affected plants per 100 inspected; Relative change = 50 %. Changed input. Change Reference affected plants per 100 inspected = 12.12. Result: Difference = 5.88 affected plants per 100 inspected; Relative change = 48.515 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Reference affected plants per 100 inspected: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ANOMALYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-010DP34 | Processing efficiency Investigate poor conversion of harvest to saleable product Inputs and exampleGreen-leaf mass received; declared incoming moisture basis [kg]; Made-tea mass; declared outgoing moisture basis [kg]; Separately recorded processing by-product mass [kg] Result: Gross made-tea recovery from received leaf (%) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — processing efficiency. Green-leaf mass received; declared incoming moisture basis = 1,200 kg; Made-tea mass; declared outgoing moisture basis = 270 kg; Separately recorded processing by-product mass = 15 kg. Results: Gross made-tea recovery from received leaf = 22.5 %. Changed input. Change Green-leaf mass received; declared incoming moisture basis = 1,201. Result: Gross made-tea recovery from received leaf = 22.481 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Green-leaf mass received; declared incoming moisture basis: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The fictional tea example uses 1,200 kg green leaf and 270 kg made tea. The unrepresented mass includes water removed and cannot all be called waste. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-011DP34 | Energy and water Target resource-efficiency improvements in estate operations Inputs and exampleSaleable product [kg]; Electric energy [kWh]; Process water [m³]; Raw material input [kg] Result: Energy per product; Water per product; Saleable mass conversion (kWh/kg; m³/kg; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — energy and water. Saleable product = 4,500 kg; Electric energy = 3,400 kWh; Process water = 80 m³; Raw material input = 5,300 kg. Results: Energy per product = 0.756 kWh/kg; Water per product = 0.018 m³/kg; Saleable mass conversion = 84.906 %. Changed input. Change Saleable product = 4,501. Result: Energy per product = 0.755 kWh/kg; Water per product = 0.018 m³/kg; Saleable mass conversion = 84.925 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Saleable product: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-012DP34 | Product quality Investigate product lots failing applicable specifications Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [%]; Example lower comparison bound [%]; Example upper comparison bound [%]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (%) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — product quality. Parameter and applicable use = Lot moisture under buyer specification; Measured result = 13 %; Example lower comparison bound = 0 %; Example upper comparison bound = 12 %; Original and limit unit = %; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 13 %. Changed input. Change Measured result = 13.13. Result: Measured value = 13.13 %. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-013DP34 | Climate resilience Compare estate adaptation investments Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP34-014DP34 | Worker safety Prioritize documented occupational hazards for competent review Inputs and exampleTask hazards; Task hazards evidence reference; exposure; exposure evidence reference; incident evidence; incident evidence evidence reference; controls; controls evidence reference; inspections; inspections evidence reference; requirements; requirements evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — worker safety. Task hazards = Missing; Task hazards evidence reference = ; exposure = Documented; exposure evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; incident evidence = Documented; incident evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; controls = Documented; controls evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspections = Documented; inspections evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; requirements = Documented; requirements evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Task hazards = Documented; Task hazards evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Task hazards: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: DD-ILO |
| DEC-DP34-015DP34 | Water and housing Identify estate communities with service deficits Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — water and housing. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-016DP34 | Maintenance Schedule critical estate and factory equipment maintenance Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — maintenance. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-017DP34 | Traceability Resolve breaks in estate product provenance Inputs and exampleUpstream lot/source reference; Downstream lot/batch reference; Exact upstream source version; Recorded upstream issue Result: Broken or affected lineage (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — traceability. Upstream lot/source reference = EXAMPLE-ROOT; Downstream lot/batch reference = 2025-BATCH-1; Exact upstream source version = Sample version1; Recorded upstream issue = Confirmed defect. Results: Broken or affected lineage = 1 items. Changed input. Change Recorded upstream issue = None. Result: Broken or affected lineage = 0 items. Review recorded lineage. Missing input. Omit Upstream lot/source reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Recorded lineage is not proof of product identity or recall authority. Preserve multi-source batches, transfers and versions; do not clear unlinked lots as safe. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-018DP34 | Carbon evidence Review estate carbon-stock estimates and pool coverage Inputs and exampleEarlier carbon density [t C/ha]; Later carbon density [t C/ha]; Same inventory area [ha]; Included pools and allometry references Result: Carbon stock change; Carbon-density change (t C; t C/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — carbon evidence. Earlier carbon density = 100 t C/ha; Later carbon density = 90 t C/ha; Same inventory area = 85 ha; Included pools and allometry references = Sample matching biomass pools; source model required. Results: Carbon stock change = -850 t C; Carbon-density change = -10 t C/ha. Changed input. Change Earlier carbon density = 101. Result: Carbon stock change = -935 t C; Carbon-density change = -11 t C/ha. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Earlier carbon density: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Inventory plots, allometry and uncertainty remain required evidence. Stock change is not an issued carbon credit, additionality test or payable service. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · Carbon stock-difference component Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change · Section 2.3.1.1, equation 2.8, stock-difference method Institution publication - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change CARBONImplementation: prototype Method source: S79 |
| DEC-DP34-019DP34 | Community consultation Resolve concerns around estate development proposals Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community consultation. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP34-020DP34 | Estate classifications Reconcile inconsistent block crop and land-use records Inputs and exampleBlock ID; Block ID evidence reference; crop labels; crop labels evidence reference; planted area; planted area evidence reference; source edition; source edition evidence reference; definitions; definitions evidence reference; steward; steward evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — estate classifications. Block ID = Missing; Block ID evidence reference = ; crop labels = Documented; crop labels evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; planted area = Documented; planted area evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source edition = Documented; source edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; definitions = Documented; definitions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; steward = Documented; steward evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Block ID = Documented; Block ID evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Block ID: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Estate agronomist, operations lead and environmental/social reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-001DP35 | Training and services Identify worker groups missing agreed services Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — training and services. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-002DP35 | Issue follow-up Escalate unresolved worker and community issues Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — issue follow-up. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-003DP35 | Programme overlap Review overlapping assistance without exposing private identities Inputs and examplePermitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit Result: Overlapping days (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — programme overlap. Permitted recipient/service reference = Laggala Pallegama — programme overlap; 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. Results: Overlapping days = 61 days. Changed input. Change Other support period begins = 2025-01-01; Other support period ends = 2025-06-30. Result: Overlapping days = 181 days. Review possible overlap. Missing input. Omit Permitted recipient/service reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPEATImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-004DP35 | Verified outcomes Identify programmes lacking baseline and follow-up evidence Inputs and exampleProgramme cohort; Programme cohort evidence reference; baseline outcome; baseline outcome evidence reference; follow-up; follow-up evidence reference; verification; verification evidence reference; attrition; attrition evidence reference; context; context evidence reference Result: Study evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — verified outcomes. Programme cohort = Missing; Programme cohort evidence reference = ; baseline outcome = Documented; baseline outcome evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; follow-up = Documented; follow-up evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; verification = Documented; verification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; attrition = Documented; attrition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; context = Documented; context evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Study evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Programme cohort = Documented; Programme cohort evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Study evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Programme cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP35-005DP35 | Drinking water Refer documented water-quality concerns to qualified services Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [NTU]; Example lower comparison bound [NTU]; Example upper comparison bound [NTU]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (NTU) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — drinking water. Parameter and applicable use = Supply-water turbidity; Measured result = 1.4 NTU; Example lower comparison bound = 0 NTU; Example upper comparison bound = 1 NTU; Original and limit unit = NTU; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 1.4 NTU. Changed input. Change Measured result = 1.414. Result: Measured value = 1.414 NTU. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-006DP35 | Sanitation Prioritize community sanitation improvements Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — sanitation. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-007DP35 | Housing safety Refer unsafe housing observations for qualified assessment Inputs and exampleBuilding condition; Building condition evidence reference; occupancy; occupancy evidence reference; hazards; hazards evidence reference; inspection evidence; inspection evidence evidence reference; referral authority; referral authority evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — housing safety. Building condition = Missing; Building condition evidence reference = ; occupancy = Documented; occupancy evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; hazards = Documented; hazards evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; inspection evidence = Documented; inspection evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; referral authority = Documented; referral authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Building condition = Documented; Building condition evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Building condition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-008DP35 | Childcare access Address gaps in access to appropriate childcare services Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [childcare places]; Rated capacity for that period [childcare places]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [childcare places] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (childcare places; childcare places) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — childcare access. Demand in the selected period = 150 childcare places; Rated capacity for that period = 180 childcare places; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 childcare places. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 childcare places; Usable capacity = 135 childcare places. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 childcare places; Usable capacity = 135 childcare places. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-009DP35 | Health referrals Follow up access to qualified health services Inputs and exampleDistinct people with a consented service referral [cases]; Those people with referral receipt acknowledged [cases]; Those people with a documented qualified-service contact [cases]; People whose service contact is unknown [cases] Result: Recorded service-contact share; Not confirmed as having a service contact; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — health referrals. Distinct people with a consented service referral = 180 cases; Those people with referral receipt acknowledged = 132 cases; Those people with a documented qualified-service contact = 96 cases; People whose service contact is unknown = 12 cases. Results: Recorded service-contact share = 53.333 %; Not confirmed as having a service contact = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct people with a consented service referral = 181. Result: Recorded service-contact share = 53.039 %; Not confirmed as having a service contact = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct people with a consented service referral: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. A service contact is not a clinical outcome, diagnosis or treatment recommendation. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-010DP35 | Skills development Select training topics aligned with livelihood needs Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Livelihood business skills. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional livelihood business skills option: compare the documented Needs assessment, course options.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-011DP35 | Livelihood alternatives Compare feasible supplementary livelihood options Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Home-based food processing. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional home-based food processing option: compare the documented Skills, resources.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-012DP35 | Workplace concerns Refer documented occupational safety concerns Inputs and exampleTask hazard; Task hazard evidence reference; incident evidence; incident evidence evidence reference; current controls; current controls evidence reference; worker concerns; worker concerns evidence reference; competent recipient; competent recipient evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — workplace concerns. Task hazard = Missing; Task hazard evidence reference = ; incident evidence = Documented; incident evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current controls = Documented; current controls evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; worker concerns = Documented; worker concerns evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; competent recipient = Documented; competent recipient evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Task hazard = Documented; Task hazard evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Task hazard: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: DD-ILO |
| DEC-DP35-013DP35 | Service accessibility Compare travel barriers to essential community services Inputs and exampleSupplied journey distance from a documented route survey [km]; Supplied journey duration; not calculated here [minutes]; Usable vehicle/team capacity [units]; Required capacity [units]; Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window Result: Estimated travel time; Capacity minus demand (minutes; units) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service accessibility. 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. Results: Estimated travel time = 65 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Changed input. Change Supplied journey duration; not calculated here = 75. Result: Estimated travel time = 75 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Resolve access/capacity evidence. Missing input. Omit Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ROUTEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-014DP35 | Disaster preparedness Identify residents missing agreed preparedness arrangements Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — disaster preparedness. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-015DP35 | Participation Ensure affected workers can respond to development proposals Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — participation. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-016DP35 | Community facilities Prioritize repair referrals for shared facilities Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community facilities. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-017DP35 | Support eligibility Prepare evidence for authorized community-support decisions Inputs and exampleScheme; Scheme evidence reference; applicant evidence; applicant evidence evidence reference; requirements; requirements evidence reference; prior support; prior support evidence reference; consent; consent evidence reference; referral; referral evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — support eligibility. Scheme = Missing; Scheme evidence reference = ; applicant evidence = Documented; applicant evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; requirements = Documented; requirements evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; prior support = Documented; prior support evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; consent = Documented; consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; referral = Documented; referral evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Scheme = Documented; Scheme evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Scheme: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S13, S42, S47 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP35-018DP35 | Community funds Reconcile approved group contributions and expenditure Inputs and exampleOpening cash/receivable balance [LKR]; Receipts and documented additions [LKR]; Payments and documented reductions [LKR]; Other documented non-overlapping adjustments [LKR]; Independently recorded closing balance [LKR] Result: Calculated closing balance; Recorded minus calculated closing (LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community funds. Opening cash/receivable balance = 160,000 LKR; Receipts and documented additions = 48,000 LKR; Payments and documented reductions = 35,000 LKR; Other documented non-overlapping adjustments = 9,000 LKR; Independently recorded closing balance = 163,500 LKR. Results: Calculated closing balance = 164,000 LKR; Recorded minus calculated closing = -500 LKR. Changed input. Change Opening cash/receivable balance = 160,001. Result: Calculated closing balance = 164,001 LKR; Recorded minus calculated closing = -501 LKR. Reconcile closing balance. Missing input. Omit Opening cash/receivable balance: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use the same physical boundary, period and units. A residual is a reconciliation issue, not automatically a measured loss. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-019DP35 | Communication Improve delivery of agreed community information Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — communication. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP35-020DP35 | Privacy and safeguarding Determine safe sharing of sensitive community case information Inputs and examplePurpose; Purpose evidence reference; consent or lawful basis; consent or lawful basis evidence reference; required fields; required fields evidence reference; recipient; recipient evidence reference; classification; classification evidence reference; approval; approval evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — privacy and safeguarding. Purpose = Missing; Purpose evidence reference = ; consent or lawful basis = Documented; consent or lawful basis evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; required fields = Documented; required fields evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; recipient = Documented; recipient evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; classification = Documented; classification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approval = Documented; approval evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Purpose = Documented; Purpose evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Purpose: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community representative, service specialist and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-001DP36 | Supply matching Match available produce with compatible dated buyer demand Inputs and exampleOffered product and grade; Required product and grade; Available uncommitted quantity [kg]; Required quantity [kg]; Supply available from; Supply available until; Delivery window begins; Delivery window ends; Required quality, rights and conditions Result: Supply minus demand (kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — supply matching. Offered product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Required product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Available uncommitted quantity = 1,200 kg; Required quantity = 1,500 kg; Supply available from = 2025-06-01; Supply available until = 2025-06-20; Delivery window begins = 2025-06-05; Delivery window ends = 2025-06-18; Required quality, rights and conditions = Met. Results: Supply minus demand = -300 kg. Changed input. Change Available uncommitted quantity = 1,201. Result: Supply minus demand = -299 kg. Review quantity/capacity gap. Missing input. Omit Offered product and grade: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-002DP36 | Procurement prices Compare procurement offers for equivalent product grades Inputs and exampleSupplier or offer reference; Product, grade and weighing basis; Quoted purchase price [LKR/initial kg]; Non-overlapping transfer and handling cost [LKR/initial kg]; Assumed mass not retained for sale [%]; Stated delivery date; Stated payment date; Matching grade, weighing basis and terms evidenced in this example; Quotation, grade and terms reference Result: Landed cost per retained kilogram; Quoted headline price (LKR/retained kg; LKR/initial kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Matale supplier-quotation scenario. Supplier or offer reference = Matale supplier-quotation scenario; Product, grade and weighing basis = Tomato / same stated grade / per initial kilogram; Quoted purchase price = 180 LKR/initial kg; Non-overlapping transfer and handling cost = 20 LKR/initial kg; Assumed mass not retained for sale = 5 %; Stated delivery date = 2025-06-25; Stated payment date = 2025-06-30; Matching grade, weighing basis and terms evidenced in this example = Recorded; Quotation, grade and terms reference = Fictional quotation and specification / version 1. Results: Landed cost per retained kilogram = 210.526 LKR/retained kg; Quoted headline price = 180 LKR/initial kg. Changed input. Change Quoted purchase price = 181. Result: Landed cost per retained kilogram = 211.579 LKR/retained kg; Quoted headline price = 181 LKR/initial kg. Compare the stated price result and payment terms. Missing input. Omit Supplier or offer reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Quotes, loss assumptions and costs are fictional. Compare matching grades, weighing bases, payment timing and terms. The result does not authorize a purchase, sale, financing or supply agreement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required PRICEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-003DP36 | Trading spreads Investigate wholesale and retail spreads after costs Inputs and exampleComparable purchase quotation [LKR/kg]; Comparable selling quotation [LKR/kg]; Non-overlapping transfer costs [LKR/kg]; Expected saleable mass loss [%]; Product, grade and price basis Result: Quoted net return per purchased kg; Unadjusted quoted spread (LKR/kg; LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — trading spreads. Comparable purchase quotation = 180 LKR/kg; Comparable selling quotation = 222 LKR/kg; Non-overlapping transfer costs = 20 LKR/kg; Expected saleable mass loss = 5 %; Product, grade and price basis = Tomato / same stated grade / per purchased kilogram. Results: Quoted net return per purchased kg = 10.9 LKR/kg; Unadjusted quoted spread = 42 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Comparable purchase quotation = 181. Result: Quoted net return per purchased kg = 9.9 LKR/kg; Unadjusted quoted spread = 41 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable purchase quotation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use matching grade, price date, currency, mass basis and payment terms. This quotation scenario excludes unlisted costs and is not realized profit or a forecast. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required PRICEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-004DP36 | Delivery commitments Prioritize time-sensitive buyer orders Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — delivery commitments. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-005DP36 | Supplier reliability Review supplier delivery performance using accepted records Inputs and examplePlanned value [kg]; Observed value [kg] Result: Difference; Relative change (kg; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — supplier reliability. Planned value = 100 kg; Observed value = 90 kg. Results: Difference = -10 kg; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Planned value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 kg; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Planned value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required VARIANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-006DP36 | Product acceptance Refer received lots failing agreed quality specifications Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [%]; Example lower comparison bound [%]; Example upper comparison bound [%]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (%) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — product acceptance. Parameter and applicable use = Received-lot moisture; Measured result = 13.5 %; Example lower comparison bound = 0 %; Example upper comparison bound = 12 %; Original and limit unit = %; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 13.5 %. Changed input. Change Measured result = 13.635. Result: Measured value = 13.635 %. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-007DP36 | Stock management Plan replenishment without overcommitting perishable stock Inputs and examplePhysical stock [kg]; Quarantined stock [kg]; Expired stock [kg]; Committed usable stock [kg]; Additional demand [kg]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days] Result: Uncommitted usable stock; Additional demand gap (kg; kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — stock management. Physical stock = 1,200 kg; Quarantined stock = 100 kg; Expired stock = 50 kg; Committed usable stock = 740 kg; Additional demand = 500 kg; Supplier lead time = 14 days; Remaining shelf life of usable stock = 30 days. Results: Uncommitted usable stock = 310 kg; Additional demand gap = 190 kg. Changed input. Change Physical stock = 1,201. Result: Uncommitted usable stock = 311 kg; Additional demand gap = 189 kg. Review replenishment gap. Missing input. Omit Physical stock: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INVENTORYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-008DP36 | Spoilage reduction Identify handling and storage stages with verified losses Inputs and exampleBatch input on stated moisture basis [kg]; Saleable output [kg]; Usable by-product [kg]; Closing stock [kg]; Documented transfers out [kg] Result: Unaccounted physical share; Unaccounted mass (%; kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — spoilage reduction. Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,200 kg; Saleable output = 970 kg; Usable by-product = 85 kg; Closing stock = 45 kg; Documented transfers out = 20 kg. Results: Unaccounted physical share = 6.667 %; Unaccounted mass = 80 kg. Changed input. Change Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,201. Result: Unaccounted physical share = 6.744 %; Unaccounted mass = 81 kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Batch input on stated moisture basis: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use a consistent moisture basis and process boundary. Unaccounted mass is not automatically avoidable food loss or spoilage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required LOSSImplementation: prototype Method source: S57 |
| DEC-DP36-009DP36 | Transport planning Compare feasible collection and delivery routes Inputs and exampleSupplied journey distance from a documented route survey [km]; Supplied journey duration; not calculated here [minutes]; Usable vehicle/team capacity [units]; Required capacity [units]; Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window Result: Estimated travel time; Capacity minus demand (minutes; units) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — transport planning. 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. Results: Estimated travel time = 65 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Changed input. Change Supplied journey duration; not calculated here = 75. Result: Estimated travel time = 75 minutes; Capacity minus demand = 3 units. Resolve access/capacity evidence. Missing input. Omit Supplied journey distance from a documented route survey: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits 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. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ROUTEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-010DP36 | Storage choice Compare storage with immediate sale under price uncertainty Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Immediate sale. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional immediate sale option: compare the documented Storage costs, shelf life.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-011DP36 | Trading cash flow Identify cash gaps from buying and selling schedules Inputs and exampleCash available before the first dated event [LKR]; Produce purchase payment date; Produce purchase payment [LKR]; Handling and storage payment date; Handling and storage payment [LKR]; Buyer receipt date; Buyer receipt [LKR] Result: Minimum projected cash; Maximum projected cash shortfall; Projected closing cash (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Produce purchase payment cash-plan scenario. Cash available before the first dated event = 100,000 LKR; Produce purchase payment date = 2025-06-01; Produce purchase payment = 250,000 LKR; Handling and storage payment date = 2025-06-08; Handling and storage payment = 50,000 LKR; Buyer receipt date = 2025-06-25; Buyer receipt = 380,000 LKR. Results: Minimum projected cash = -200,000 LKR; Maximum projected cash shortfall = 200,000 LKR; Projected closing cash = 180,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Cash available before the first dated event = 100,001. Result: Minimum projected cash = -199,999 LKR; Maximum projected cash shortfall = 199,999 LKR; Projected closing cash = 180,001 LKR. Review funding and payment timing before committing. Missing input. Omit Cash available before the first dated event: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits These are dated fictional cash assumptions, not actual bank balances or a credit recommendation. A positive closing balance can conceal an earlier shortage. Same-day receipt/payment ordering needs evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-012DP36 | Buyer payments Follow up overdue customer payments within agreed terms Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — buyer payments. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-013DP36 | Customer dependence Review exposure to a small number of buyers Inputs and exampleCompatible category amount [LKR] Result: Category amount; Share of selected total (LKR; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Kandy wholesale channel. Compatible category amount = 900,000 LKR. Results: Category amount = 900,000 LKR; Share of selected total = 45 %. Changed input. Change Compatible category amount = 900,001. Result: Category amount = 900,001 LKR; Share of selected total = 45 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Compatible category amount: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. total = 2,000,000; hhi = 0.289 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy. This is a fictional selected sales portfolio, not an actual trader or market total. No concentration-policy threshold is inferred. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · HHI concentration component United States Department of Justice · Definition and four-firm worked example Government publication - United States Department of Justice CONCENTRATIONImplementation: prototype Method source: S83 |
| DEC-DP36-014DP36 | Supplier dependence Compare sourcing alternatives where supply is concentrated Inputs and exampleCompatible category amount [kg] Result: Category amount; Share of selected total (kg; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala farmer group. Compatible category amount = 95 kg. Results: Category amount = 95 kg; Share of selected total = 4.762 %. Changed input. Change Compatible category amount = 95.95. Result: Category amount = 95.95 kg; Share of selected total = 4.807 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Compatible category amount: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. total = 1,995; hhi = 0.206 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · HHI concentration component United States Department of Justice · Definition and four-firm worked example Government publication - United States Department of Justice CONCENTRATIONImplementation: prototype Method source: S83 |
| DEC-DP36-015DP36 | Price variability Adjust procurement exposure after reviewing price volatility Inputs and exampleComparable observation [LKR/kg] Result: Observed value (LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — price variability. Comparable observation = 104 LKR/kg. Results: Observed value = 104 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Comparable observation = 105. Result: Observed value = 105 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Comparable observation: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. n = 3; mean = 111; sd = 7; cv = 6.306 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Sample coefficient of variation National Institute of Standards and Technology United States · Description, sample coefficient of variation and ratio-scale restrictions Government publication - National Institute of Standards and Technology United States VOLATILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: S84 |
| DEC-DP36-016DP36 | Traceability Resolve missing provenance for traded lots Inputs and exampleUpstream lot/source reference; Downstream lot/batch reference; Exact upstream source version; Recorded upstream issue Result: Broken or affected lineage (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — traceability. Upstream lot/source reference = EXAMPLE-ROOT; Downstream lot/batch reference = 2025-BATCH-1; Exact upstream source version = Sample version1; Recorded upstream issue = Confirmed defect. Results: Broken or affected lineage = 1 items. Changed input. Change Recorded upstream issue = None. Result: Broken or affected lineage = 0 items. Review recorded lineage. Missing input. Omit Upstream lot/source reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Recorded lineage is not proof of product identity or recall authority. Preserve multi-source batches, transfers and versions; do not clear unlinked lots as safe. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-017DP36 | Market expansion Compare candidate markets against logistics and demand Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Local cooperative market. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional local cooperative market option: compare the documented Market demand, access.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-018DP36 | Contract readiness Check evidence before entering supply agreements Inputs and exampleOffer; Offer evidence reference; quantity; quantity evidence reference; grade; grade evidence reference; delivery; delivery evidence reference; payment terms; payment terms evidence reference; authority; authority evidence reference; documented conditions; documented conditions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — contract readiness. Offer = Missing; Offer evidence reference = ; quantity = Documented; quantity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; grade = Documented; grade evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; delivery = Documented; delivery evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; payment terms = Documented; payment terms evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; authority = Documented; authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; documented conditions = Documented; documented conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Offer = Documented; Offer evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Offer: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-019DP36 | Packaging choices Compare packaging options for losses cost and buyer needs Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Reusable crates. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional reusable crates option: compare the documented Packaging costs, damage rates.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP36-020DP36 | Product catalogue Correct inconsistent product grades and quantity units Inputs and exampleSource product; Source product evidence reference; grade definition; grade definition evidence reference; unit; unit evidence reference; conversion evidence; conversion evidence evidence reference; reference catalogue; reference catalogue evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — product catalogue. Source product = Missing; Source product evidence reference = ; grade definition = Documented; grade definition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; unit = Documented; unit evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; conversion evidence = Documented; conversion evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; reference catalogue = Documented; reference catalogue evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Source product = Documented; Source product evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Source product: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-001DP37 | Processing yield Improve conversion of inputs into saleable output Inputs and exampleInput mass on matching moisture basis [kg]; Saleable output on matching basis [kg]; Usable by-products [kg] Result: Saleable mass conversion (%) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — processing yield. Input mass on matching moisture basis = 1,200 kg; Saleable output on matching basis = 970 kg; Usable by-products = 85 kg. Results: Saleable mass conversion = 80.833 %. Changed input. Change Input mass on matching moisture basis = 1,201. Result: Saleable mass conversion = 80.766 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Input mass on matching moisture basis: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-002DP37 | Logistics costs Investigate high shipment cost per tonne-kilometre Inputs and exampleShipment cost [LKR]; Actual carried load [t]; Verified travelled route distance [km] Result: Shipment cost per tonne-kilometre (LKR/(t km)) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — logistics costs. Shipment cost = 180,000 LKR; Actual carried load = 12 t; Verified travelled route distance = 80 km. Results: Shipment cost per tonne-kilometre = 187.5 LKR/(t km). Changed input. Change Shipment cost = 180,001. Result: Shipment cost per tonne-kilometre = 187.501 LKR/(t km). Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Shipment cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COSTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-003DP37 | Cold chain Investigate shipments outside approved temperature conditions Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [°C]; Example lower comparison bound [°C]; Example upper comparison bound [°C]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (°C) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — cold chain. Parameter and applicable use = Fictional chilled fresh-cut vegetable lot / arrival temperature; Measured result = 8 °C; Example lower comparison bound = 0 °C; Example upper comparison bound = 5 °C; Original and limit unit = °C; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional buyer specification 0–5 °C / version 1; not a food-safety clearance; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 8 °C. Changed input. Change Measured result = 8.08. Result: Measured value = 8.08 °C. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. A temperature comparison does not establish microbiological safety, cumulative cold-chain compliance or fitness for consumption. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-004DP37 | Export performance Review export unit values and destination performance Inputs and exampleRecorded export value [LKR]; Export quantity on matching product basis [kg] Result: Output per resource (LKR/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — export performance. Recorded export value = 8,832,000 LKR; Export quantity on matching product basis = 4,500 kg. Results: Output per resource = 1,962.667 LKR/kg. Changed input. Change Recorded export value = 8,832,001. Result: Output per resource = 1,962.667 LKR/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Recorded export value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A unit value mixes prices and product composition. It is not automatically a like-for-like market price. Match grade, product code, currency and period. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-005DP37 | Raw materials Match processing demand to compatible supplier lots Inputs and exampleOffered product and grade; Required product and grade; Available uncommitted quantity [kg]; Required quantity [kg]; Supply available from; Supply available until; Delivery window begins; Delivery window ends; Required quality, rights and conditions Result: Supply minus demand (kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — raw materials. Offered product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Required product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Available uncommitted quantity = 1,200 kg; Required quantity = 1,500 kg; Supply available from = 2025-06-01; Supply available until = 2025-06-20; Delivery window begins = 2025-06-05; Delivery window ends = 2025-06-18; Required quality, rights and conditions = Met. Results: Supply minus demand = -300 kg. Changed input. Change Available uncommitted quantity = 1,201. Result: Supply minus demand = -299 kg. Review quantity/capacity gap. Missing input. Omit Offered product and grade: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-006DP37 | Capacity planning Compare orders with usable processing capacity Inputs and exampleDemand in the selected period [machine hours]; Rated capacity for that period [machine hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [machine hours] Result: Usable capacity minus demand; Usable capacity (machine hours; machine hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — capacity planning. Demand in the selected period = 150 machine hours; Rated capacity for that period = 180 machine hours; Unavailable or restricted capacity = 45 machine hours. Results: Usable capacity minus demand = -15 machine hours; Usable capacity = 135 machine hours. Changed input. Change Demand in the selected period = 151. Result: Usable capacity minus demand = -16 machine hours; Usable capacity = 135 machine hours. Review capacity shortfall. Missing input. Omit Demand in the selected period: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CAPACITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-007DP37 | Production scheduling Schedule batches around quality and delivery constraints Inputs and exampleRequired resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites Result: Planned duration; Resource hours remaining (days; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — production scheduling. 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. Results: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Required resource effort = 16.16. Result: Planned duration = 3 days; Resource hours remaining = 7.84 hours. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Missing input. Omit Required resource: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-008DP37 | Quality assurance Prioritize product nonconformities for technical investigation Inputs and exampleParameter and applicable use; Measured result [mm]; Example lower comparison bound [mm]; Example upper comparison bound [mm]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis Result: Measured value (mm) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — quality assurance. Parameter and applicable use = Fictional finished-pack seal width; Measured result = 10.4 mm; Example lower comparison bound = 9.8 mm; Example upper comparison bound = 10.2 mm; Original and limit unit = mm; Sampling and analytical method/version = Sample laboratory method; Limit source, version and use = Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match = Yes; Result is below a reporting/detection limit = No; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis = Sample stated sampling/averaging basis. Results: Measured value = 10.4 mm. Changed input. Change Measured result = 10.504. Result: Measured value = 10.504 mm. Outside example comparison bounds. Missing input. Omit Parameter and applicable use: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero. These fictional packaging dimensions are a stated buyer specification, not a general product standard. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUALITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-009DP37 | Traceability and recall Identify affected lots when a source defect is confirmed Inputs and exampleUpstream lot/source reference; Downstream lot/batch reference; Exact upstream source version; Recorded upstream issue Result: Broken or affected lineage (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — traceability and recall. Upstream lot/source reference = EXAMPLE-ROOT; Downstream lot/batch reference = 2025-BATCH-1; Exact upstream source version = Sample version1; Recorded upstream issue = Confirmed defect. Results: Broken or affected lineage = 1 items. Changed input. Change Recorded upstream issue = None. Result: Broken or affected lineage = 0 items. Review recorded lineage. Missing input. Omit Upstream lot/source reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Recorded lineage is not proof of product identity or recall authority. Preserve multi-source batches, transfers and versions; do not clear unlinked lots as safe. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-010DP37 | Food loss Select loss-reduction actions at processing bottlenecks Inputs and exampleBatch input on stated moisture basis [kg]; Saleable output [kg]; Usable by-product [kg]; Closing stock [kg]; Documented transfers out [kg] Result: Unaccounted physical share; Unaccounted mass (%; kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — food loss. Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,200 kg; Saleable output = 970 kg; Usable by-product = 85 kg; Closing stock = 45 kg; Documented transfers out = 20 kg. Results: Unaccounted physical share = 6.667 %; Unaccounted mass = 80 kg. Changed input. Change Batch input on stated moisture basis = 1,201. Result: Unaccounted physical share = 6.744 %; Unaccounted mass = 81 kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Batch input on stated moisture basis: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use a consistent moisture basis and process boundary. Unaccounted mass is not automatically avoidable food loss or spoilage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required LOSSImplementation: prototype Method source: S57 |
| DEC-DP37-011DP37 | Energy efficiency Target processes with high energy per saleable unit Inputs and exampleEnergy consumed [kWh]; Saleable product output [kg] Result: Specific energy use (kWh/kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — energy efficiency. Energy consumed = 3,128 kWh; Saleable product output = 4,500 kg. Results: Specific energy use = 0.695 kWh/kg. Changed input. Change Energy consumed = 3,129. Result: Specific energy use = 0.695 kWh/kg. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Energy consumed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required YIELDImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-012DP37 | Water efficiency Compare process water use and reuse alternatives Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Reduce process-water losses. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional reduce process-water losses option: compare the documented Water input, usable recycled water.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-013DP37 | Equipment reliability Prioritize critical equipment repairs and preventive work Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — equipment reliability. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-014DP37 | Inventory expiry Avoid using expired or quarantined materials Inputs and examplePhysical stock [kg]; Quarantined stock [kg]; Expired stock [kg]; Committed usable stock [kg]; Additional demand [kg]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days] Result: Uncommitted usable stock; Additional demand gap (kg; kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — inventory expiry. Physical stock = 1,200 kg; Quarantined stock = 100 kg; Expired stock = 50 kg; Committed usable stock = 740 kg; Additional demand = 500 kg; Supplier lead time = 14 days; Remaining shelf life of usable stock = 30 days. Results: Uncommitted usable stock = 310 kg; Additional demand gap = 190 kg. Changed input. Change Physical stock = 1,201. Result: Uncommitted usable stock = 311 kg; Additional demand gap = 189 kg. Review replenishment gap. Missing input. Omit Physical stock: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INVENTORYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-015DP37 | Packaging compliance Check packaging against destination and buyer requirements Inputs and exampleProduct; Product evidence reference; packaging; packaging evidence reference; label version; label version evidence reference; destination rules; destination rules evidence reference; buyer specification; buyer specification evidence reference; review; review evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — packaging compliance. Product = Missing; Product evidence reference = ; packaging = Documented; packaging evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; label version = Documented; label version evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; destination rules = Documented; destination rules evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; buyer specification = Documented; buyer specification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; review = Documented; review evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Product = Documented; Product evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Product: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-016DP37 | Working capital Identify cash shortfalls across purchase production and payment cycles Inputs and exampleCash available before the first dated event [LKR]; Raw-material payment date; Raw-material payment [LKR]; Production payment date; Production payment [LKR]; Customer receipt date; Customer receipt [LKR] Result: Minimum projected cash; Maximum projected cash shortfall; Projected closing cash (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Raw-material payment cash-plan scenario. Cash available before the first dated event = 100,000 LKR; Raw-material payment date = 2025-06-01; Raw-material payment = 250,000 LKR; Production payment date = 2025-06-08; Production payment = 50,000 LKR; Customer receipt date = 2025-06-25; Customer receipt = 380,000 LKR. Results: Minimum projected cash = -200,000 LKR; Maximum projected cash shortfall = 200,000 LKR; Projected closing cash = 180,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Cash available before the first dated event = 100,001. Result: Minimum projected cash = -199,999 LKR; Maximum projected cash shortfall = 199,999 LKR; Projected closing cash = 180,001 LKR. Review funding and payment timing before committing. Missing input. Omit Cash available before the first dated event: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits These are dated fictional cash assumptions, not actual bank balances or a credit recommendation. A positive closing balance can conceal an earlier shortage. Same-day receipt/payment ordering needs evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-017DP37 | Expansion appraisal Compare equipment and facility expansion investments Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP37-018DP37 | Export documentation Refer complete shipment documentation for required clearance Inputs and exampleShipment; Shipment evidence reference; certificates; certificates evidence reference; origin; origin evidence reference; permits; permits evidence reference; specification; specification evidence reference; current requirements; current requirements evidence reference; authority; authority evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — export documentation. Shipment = Missing; Shipment evidence reference = ; certificates = Documented; certificates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; origin = Documented; origin evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; permits = Documented; permits evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; specification = Documented; specification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; current requirements = Documented; current requirements evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; authority = Documented; authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Shipment = Documented; Shipment evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Shipment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S31, S33, S34 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP37-019DP37 | Workforce capability Target technical training to process-quality and safety gaps Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [workers]; Distinct members of that frame covered [workers]; Frame members with unknown coverage [workers] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; workers; workers) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — workforce capability. Required eligible frame = 100 workers; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 workers; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 workers. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 workers; Unknown coverage = 5 workers. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 workers; Unknown coverage = 5 workers. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP37-020DP37 | Process records Correct missing units versions and batch references Inputs and exampleProcess record; Process record evidence reference; batch; batch evidence reference; timestamp; timestamp evidence reference; measurement unit; measurement unit evidence reference; calibration; calibration evidence reference; source; source evidence reference; version; version evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — process records. Process record = Missing; Process record evidence reference = ; batch = Documented; batch evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; timestamp = Documented; timestamp evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; measurement unit = Documented; measurement unit evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; calibration = Documented; calibration evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source = Documented; source evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; version = Documented; version evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Process record = Documented; Process record evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Process record: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-001DP38 | Investment appraisal Select investments for detailed cash-flow appraisal Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP38-002DP38 | Repayment capacity Assess debt-service coverage under lender-defined scenarios Inputs and exampleCash available for debt service [LKR]; Scheduled principal for same period [LKR]; Scheduled interest for same period [LKR]; Repayment and cash-flow period Result: Debt-service coverage; Cash after scheduled debt service (ratio; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — repayment capacity. Cash available for debt service = 860,000 LKR; Scheduled principal for same period = 500,000 LKR; Scheduled interest for same period = 120,000 LKR; Repayment and cash-flow period = Sample annual period. Results: Debt-service coverage = 1.387 ratio; Cash after scheduled debt service = 240,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Cash available for debt service = 860,001. Result: Debt-service coverage = 1.387 ratio; Cash after scheduled debt service = 240,001 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Cash available for debt service: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits No lender covenant, credit decision, borrower eligibility or legal consequence is inferred. Seasonal repayment timing and downside scenarios remain explicit. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required DEBTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-003DP38 | Co-financing Identify gaps between required finance and confirmed commitments Inputs and exampleApproved financing need [LKR]; Confirmed commitments [LKR]; Funds actually disbursed [LKR]; Verified eligible expenditure [LKR] Result: Unfunded need; Committed but not disbursed; Disbursed but not spent (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — co-financing. 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. Results: Unfunded need = 850,000 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Approved financing need = 3,500,001. Result: Unfunded need = 850,001 LKR; Committed but not disbursed = 1,010,000 LKR; Disbursed but not spent = 440,000 LKR. Review unfunded need. Missing input. Omit Approved financing need: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep commitments, cash receipts, expenditure and verified physical outputs separate. Negative balances flag overcommitment or reconciliation; no automatic accounting adjustment. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FUNDINGImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-004DP38 | Sensitivity Compare investment viability under reviewed stress assumptions Inputs and exampleInitial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%] Result: Five-year net present value (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Base cash-flow scenario. Initial investment = 2,400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year1 = 400,000 LKR; Net cash flow year2 = 550,000 LKR; Net cash flow year3 = 680,000 LKR; Net cash flow year4 = 720,000 LKR; Net cash flow year5 = 760,000 LKR; Residual value at end of year5 = 120,000 LKR; Example discount rate = 8 %. Results: Five-year net present value = 109,847.353 LKR. Changed input. Change Initial investment = 2,400,001. Result: Five-year net present value = 109,846.353 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Initial investment: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: S81 |
| DEC-DP38-005DP38 | Climate risk Refer climate-exposed financing cases for specialist assessment Inputs and exampleAsset locations; Asset locations evidence reference; hazards; hazards evidence reference; exposure; exposure evidence reference; adaptation; adaptation evidence reference; insurance; insurance evidence reference; sector vulnerability; sector vulnerability evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — climate risk. Asset locations = Missing; Asset locations evidence reference = ; hazards = Documented; hazards evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; exposure = Documented; exposure evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; adaptation = Documented; adaptation evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; insurance = Documented; insurance evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; sector vulnerability = Documented; sector vulnerability evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Asset locations = Documented; Asset locations evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Asset locations: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. District locator only; no asset, constraint, reservation or scenario overlay Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-006DP38 | Environmental and social risk Evaluate documented environmental and social controls Inputs and exampleProject screening; Project screening evidence reference; permits; permits evidence reference; affected people; affected people evidence reference; safeguards; safeguards evidence reference; controls; controls evidence reference; lender policy; lender policy evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — environmental and social risk. Project screening = Missing; Project screening evidence reference = ; permits = Documented; permits evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; affected people = Documented; affected people evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; safeguards = Documented; safeguards evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; controls = Documented; controls evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; lender policy = Documented; lender policy evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Project screening = Documented; Project screening evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Project screening: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-007DP38 | Green taxonomy Refer proposed green-finance classifications for verification Inputs and exampleActivity; Activity evidence reference; taxonomy edition; taxonomy edition evidence reference; technical criteria; technical criteria evidence reference; safeguards; safeguards evidence reference; evidence; evidence evidence reference; reviewer; reviewer evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — green taxonomy. Activity = Missing; Activity evidence reference = ; taxonomy edition = Documented; taxonomy edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; technical criteria = Documented; technical criteria evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; safeguards = Documented; safeguards evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; evidence = Documented; evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; reviewer = Documented; reviewer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Activity = Documented; Activity evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Activity: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S73, S43, S44 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP38-008DP38 | Credit evidence Identify missing or contradictory borrower evidence Inputs and exampleOriginal source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence Result: Unresolved equivalence items (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — credit evidence. Original source value/definition = Consented borrower records: primary register entry; Comparison source value/definition = Consented borrower records: conflicting source return; Original version = Sample version1; Comparison version = Sample version2; Documented equivalence evidence = Unresolved. Results: Unresolved equivalence items = 1 items. Changed input. Change Documented equivalence evidence = Documented. Result: Unresolved equivalence items = 0 items. Refer documented equivalence. Missing input. Omit Original source value/definition: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-009DP38 | Seasonal lending Compare repayment schedules with agricultural cash generation Inputs and exampleCash available for debt service [LKR]; Scheduled principal for same period [LKR]; Scheduled interest for same period [LKR]; Repayment and cash-flow period Result: Debt-service coverage; Cash after scheduled debt service (ratio; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. June pre-harvest repayment window. Cash available for debt service = 80,000 LKR; Scheduled principal for same period = 100,000 LKR; Scheduled interest for same period = 20,000 LKR; Repayment and cash-flow period = June payment window / same cash and debt basis. Results: Debt-service coverage = 0.667 ratio; Cash after scheduled debt service = -40,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Cash available for debt service = 80,001. Result: Debt-service coverage = 0.667 ratio; Cash after scheduled debt service = -39,999 LKR. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Cash available for debt service: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits No lender covenant, credit decision, borrower eligibility or legal consequence is inferred. Seasonal repayment timing and downside scenarios remain explicit. These separate fictional payment windows reveal seasonal shortfalls. An annual total must not conceal a missed payment; no lender acceptance threshold or credit decision is supplied. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required DEBTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-010DP38 | Portfolio concentration Review sector geography and counterparty exposure concentration Inputs and exampleOutstanding exposure of this distinct loan [LKR]; Sector classification; District classification; Distinct counterparty reference Result: Outstanding loan exposure; This loan’s share of the selected portfolio (LKR; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala seasonal-paddy loan scenario. Outstanding exposure of this distinct loan = 7,500,000 LKR; Sector classification = Agriculture; District classification = Matale; Distinct counterparty reference = Laggala cooperative scenario. Results: Outstanding loan exposure = 7,500,000 LKR; This loan’s share of the selected portfolio = 42.857 %. Changed input. Change Outstanding exposure of this distinct loan = 7,500,001. Result: Outstanding loan exposure = 7,500,001 LKR; This loan’s share of the selected portfolio = 42.857 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Outstanding exposure of this distinct loan: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Selected-frame statistics. total = 17,500,000; hhiSector = 0.496; hhiDistrict = 0.463; hhiCounterparty = 0.352 Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy. Loans, classifications and amounts are fictional. The same exposure is classified in three separate views; it is not tripled. Missing exposure or classification withholds whole-portfolio concentration; no policy threshold or credit action is inferred. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published component · HHI concentration component United States Department of Justice · Definition and four-firm worked example Government publication - United States Department of Justice CONCENTRATIONImplementation: prototype Method source: S83 |
| DEC-DP38-011DP38 | Arrears management Prioritize overdue cases for authorized engagement Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — arrears management. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-012DP38 | Collateral review Refer collateral evidence gaps to qualified valuers and legal teams Inputs and exampleAsset; Asset evidence reference; valuation date; valuation date evidence reference; rights documents; rights documents evidence reference; encumbrances; encumbrances evidence reference; hazards; hazards evidence reference; review conditions; review conditions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — collateral review. Asset = Missing; Asset evidence reference = ; valuation date = Documented; valuation date evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rights documents = Documented; rights documents evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; encumbrances = Documented; encumbrances evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; hazards = Documented; hazards evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; review conditions = Documented; review conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Asset = Documented; Asset evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Asset: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-013DP38 | Disbursement conditions Verify prerequisites before authorized disbursement decisions Inputs and exampleFacility terms; Facility terms evidence reference; conditions precedent; conditions precedent evidence reference; documents; documents evidence reference; approvals; approvals evidence reference; borrower consent; borrower consent evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — disbursement conditions. Facility terms = Missing; Facility terms evidence reference = ; conditions precedent = Documented; conditions precedent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; documents = Documented; documents evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approvals = Documented; approvals evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; borrower consent = Documented; borrower consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Facility terms = Documented; Facility terms evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Facility terms: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-014DP38 | Impact claims Review evidence supporting financed environmental and social outcomes Inputs and exampleIntervention group households with the stated functioning water service in the financed-project frame before [%]; Intervention group households with the stated functioning water service in the financed-project frame after [%]; Comparison group households with the stated functioning water service in the financed-project frame before [%]; Comparison group households with the stated functioning water service in the financed-project frame after [%]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (percentage points) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — impact claims. Intervention group households with the stated functioning water service in the financed-project frame before = 42 %; Intervention group households with the stated functioning water service in the financed-project frame after = 59 %; Comparison group households with the stated functioning water service in the financed-project frame before = 39 %; Comparison group households with the stated functioning water service in the financed-project frame after = 46 %; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Fictional measure: Households with the stated functioning water service in the financed-project frame / matching frame, method and before-after windows. Results: Difference in changes = 10 percentage points. Changed input. Change Intervention group households with the stated functioning water service in the financed-project frame before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 percentage points. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Intervention group households with the stated functioning water service in the financed-project frame before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. This named fictional indicator illustrates the calculation. Design evidence, adverse effects and attribution remain separate; a difference in changes does not establish causation. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP38-015DP38 | Application processing Resolve financing applications stalled at required review stages Inputs and exampleDistinct original appraisal case in the stated cohort [cases]; Those original cohort members with documented review [cases]; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition [cases]; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — application processing. Distinct original appraisal case in the stated cohort = 180 cases; Those original cohort members with documented review = 132 cases; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition = 96 cases; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown = 12 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct original appraisal case in the stated cohort = 181. Result: Verified completion share = 53.039 %; Not verified complete = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct original appraisal case in the stated cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-016DP38 | Guarantee programmes Refer guarantee requests against approved scheme criteria Inputs and exampleScheme version; Scheme version evidence reference; applicant; applicant evidence reference; qualifying use; qualifying use evidence reference; evidence; evidence evidence reference; coverage conditions; coverage conditions evidence reference; authority; authority evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — guarantee programmes. Scheme version = Missing; Scheme version evidence reference = ; applicant = Documented; applicant evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; qualifying use = Documented; qualifying use evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; evidence = Documented; evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; coverage conditions = Documented; coverage conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; authority = Documented; authority evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Scheme version = Documented; Scheme version evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Scheme version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S43, S44, S73 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP38-017DP38 | Financial inclusion Identify gaps in access to appropriate financing services Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [applicants]; Distinct members of that frame covered [applicants]; Frame members with unknown coverage [applicants] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; applicants; applicants) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — financial inclusion. Required eligible frame = 100 applicants; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 applicants; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 applicants. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 applicants; Unknown coverage = 5 applicants. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 applicants; Unknown coverage = 5 applicants. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-018DP38 | Liquidity planning Compare expected funding inflows with committed disbursements Inputs and exampleCash available before the first dated event [LKR]; Committed disbursement date; Committed disbursement [LKR]; Other committed disbursement date; Other committed disbursement [LKR]; Expected funding receipt date; Expected funding receipt [LKR] Result: Minimum projected cash; Maximum projected cash shortfall; Projected closing cash (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Committed disbursement cash-plan scenario. Cash available before the first dated event = 5,000,000 LKR; Committed disbursement date = 2025-06-01; Committed disbursement = 12,500,000 LKR; Other committed disbursement date = 2025-06-08; Other committed disbursement = 2,500,000 LKR; Expected funding receipt date = 2025-06-25; Expected funding receipt = 19,000,000 LKR. Results: Minimum projected cash = -10,000,000 LKR; Maximum projected cash shortfall = 10,000,000 LKR; Projected closing cash = 9,000,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Cash available before the first dated event = 5,000,001. Result: Minimum projected cash = -9,999,999 LKR; Maximum projected cash shortfall = 9,999,999 LKR; Projected closing cash = 9,000,001 LKR. Review funding and payment timing before committing. Missing input. Omit Cash available before the first dated event: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits These are dated fictional cash assumptions, not actual bank balances or a credit recommendation. A positive closing balance can conceal an earlier shortage. Same-day receipt/payment ordering needs evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-019DP38 | Adaptation finance Compare financing alternatives for resilient farm and enterprise investments Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Term-loan financing. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional term-loan financing option: compare the documented Adaptation options, costs.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP38-020DP38 | Financial privacy Determine permitted use and sharing of client data Inputs and examplePurpose; Purpose evidence reference; lawful basis; lawful basis evidence reference; consent; consent evidence reference; classification; classification evidence reference; recipient; recipient evidence reference; access scope; access scope evidence reference; expiry; expiry evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — financial privacy. Purpose = Missing; Purpose evidence reference = ; lawful basis = Documented; lawful basis evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; consent = Documented; consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; classification = Documented; classification evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; recipient = Documented; recipient evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; access scope = Documented; access scope evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; expiry = Documented; expiry evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Purpose = Documented; Purpose evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Purpose: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Authorized credit/risk analyst and environmental/social specialist | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP39-001DP39 | Verification schedule Which field checks are due? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Agreed check date; Date of this review; Proposed checking team; Field visit arranged Result: Days past the check date (calendar days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Agreed check date = 2025-07-15; Date of this review = 2025-07-20; Proposed checking team = Independent watershed review team — example; Field visit arranged = Missing. Results: Days past the check date = 5 calendar days. Changed input. Change Date of this review = 2025-07-21. Result: Days past the check date = 6 calendar days. Arrange the independent field visit. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SCHEDULEImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-002DP39 | Service delivery How much agreed work passed the check? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Area in the annual agreement [ha]; Area visited and checked [ha]; Area meeting the agreed conditions [ha]; Checked area needing correction [ha]; Area not checked yet [ha]; Signed field-check record; Field record and protocol Result: Area meeting the conditions; Area still to check; Area needing correction (ha; ha; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Area in the annual agreement = 24 ha; Area visited and checked = 22 ha; Area meeting the agreed conditions = 20 ha; Checked area needing correction = 2 ha; Area not checked yet = 2 ha; Signed field-check record = Documented; Field record and protocol = Example field record / riverbank care checklist 1. Results: Area meeting the conditions = 20 ha; Area still to check = 2 ha; Area needing correction = 2 ha. Changed input. Change Area meeting the agreed conditions = 21; Checked area needing correction = 1. Result: Area meeting the conditions = 21 ha; Area still to check = 2 ha; Area needing correction = 1 ha. Check the remaining area and correct failed work. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required PESImplementation: prototype |
| DEC-DP39-003DP39 | Service accounting What was checked, proposed and paid? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Area meeting annual conditions [ha]; Payment proposed for this agreement and year [LKR]; Payment authorised in a separate decision [LKR]; Payment actually recorded [LKR]; Payment record or pending reference Result: Area meeting the conditions; Proposed payment; Recorded payment; Authorised amount not yet paid (ha; LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Area meeting annual conditions = 20 ha; Payment proposed for this agreement and year = 250,000 LKR; Payment authorised in a separate decision = 0 LKR; Payment actually recorded = 0 LKR; Payment record or pending reference = No payment authorised or paid in this example. Results: Area meeting the conditions = 20 ha; Proposed payment = 250,000 LKR; Recorded payment = 0 LKR; Authorised amount not yet paid = 0 LKR. Changed input. Change Area meeting annual conditions = 21. Result: Area meeting the conditions = 21 ha; Proposed payment = 250,000 LKR; Recorded payment = 0 LKR; Authorised amount not yet paid = 0 LKR. Keep this as a proposal until separately authorised. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCOUNTImplementation: prototype |
| DEC-DP39-004DP39 | Verification cost How much does a field check cost? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Checking staff cost [LKR]; Travel and field cost [LKR]; Other checking costs without overlap [LKR]; Area accepted under the same protocol [ha] Result: Checking cost per accepted hectare; Total checking cost (LKR/ha; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Checking staff cost = 60,000 LKR; Travel and field cost = 20,000 LKR; Other checking costs without overlap = 20,000 LKR; Area accepted under the same protocol = 20 ha. Results: Checking cost per accepted hectare = 5,000 LKR/ha; Total checking cost = 100,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Checking staff cost = 61,000. Result: Checking cost per accepted hectare = 5,050 LKR/ha; Total checking cost = 101,000 LKR. Compare checking costs under the same protocol. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COSTImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-005DP39 | Scheme readiness Is the scheme ready to start? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Responsible scheme owner identified; Authority to run the scheme confirmed; Work and intended environmental benefit defined; Payer and funding commitment recorded; Checking and payment rules recorded; Complaint and appeal route recorded; Scheme-rule document Result: Items to settle (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Responsible scheme owner identified = Documented; Authority to run the scheme confirmed = Missing; Work and intended environmental benefit defined = Documented; Payer and funding commitment recorded = Missing; Checking and payment rules recorded = Documented; Complaint and appeal route recorded = Documented; Scheme-rule document = Draft watershed care scheme — example. Results: Items to settle = 2 items. Changed input. Change Responsible scheme owner identified = Missing. Result: Items to settle = 3 items. Resolve the listed missing or conflicting evidence. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-006DP39 | Provider eligibility Can this group join the scheme? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Land or resource-use rights documented; Voluntary participation recorded; Proposed area identified; Applicable joining rules recorded; Work and payment conditions understood; Joining-rule and application reference Result: Items to settle before referral (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Land or resource-use rights documented = Documented; Voluntary participation recorded = Documented; Proposed area identified = Documented; Applicable joining rules recorded = Documented; Work and payment conditions understood = Missing; Joining-rule and application reference = Draft joining rules / farmer-group application — example. Results: Items to settle before referral = 1 items. Changed input. Change Land or resource-use rights documented = Missing. Result: Items to settle before referral = 2 items. Resolve the listed missing or conflicting evidence. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S13, S58, S60 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP39-007DP39 | Additionality Did the scheme add an environmental improvement? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Scheme ground cover before [%]; Scheme ground cover after [%]; Comparison ground cover before [%]; Comparison ground cover after [%]; Earlier observation; Later observation; Comparable sites, season and method documented; Baseline and existing obligations Result: Difference between the two changes; Change inside the scheme; Change at the comparison site (percentage points; percentage points; percentage points) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Scheme ground cover before = 60 %; Scheme ground cover after = 85 %; Comparison ground cover before = 62 %; Comparison ground cover after = 67 %; Earlier observation = 2024-06-30; Later observation = 2025-06-30; Comparable sites, season and method documented = Documented; Baseline and existing obligations = Fixed-point ground-cover survey; existing duties checked separately — example. Results: Difference between the two changes = 20 percentage points; Change inside the scheme = 25 percentage points; Change at the comparison site = 5 percentage points. Changed input. Change Scheme ground cover after = 86. Result: Difference between the two changes = 21 percentage points; Change inside the scheme = 26 percentage points; Change at the comparison site = 5 percentage points. Ask a specialist to assess additionality and the study assumptions. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype |
| DEC-DP39-008DP39 | Leakage Did land clearing move outside the agreement area? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; New clearing in the neighbouring area before [ha]; New clearing in the neighbouring area after [ha]; New clearing in a separate comparison area before [ha]; New clearing in the comparison area after [ha]; Earlier observation; Later observation; Equal observation windows and fixed comparable areas documented; Map and field-check reference Result: Difference between the two increases; Increase in neighbouring clearing; Increase in comparison-area clearing (ha; ha; ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; New clearing in the neighbouring area before = 0.6 ha; New clearing in the neighbouring area after = 1.4 ha; New clearing in a separate comparison area before = 0.4 ha; New clearing in the comparison area after = 0.5 ha; Earlier observation = 2024-06-30; Later observation = 2025-06-30; Equal observation windows and fixed comparable areas documented = Documented; Map and field-check reference = Two fixed 200 ha observation areas; same clearing definition and season — example. Results: Difference between the two increases = 0.7 ha; Increase in neighbouring clearing = 0.8 ha; Increase in comparison-area clearing = 0.1 ha. Changed input. Change New clearing in the neighbouring area after = 1.5. Result: Difference between the two increases = 0.8 ha; Increase in neighbouring clearing = 0.9 ha; Increase in comparison-area clearing = 0.1 ha. Investigate neighbouring clearing and possible causes. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype |
| DEC-DP39-009DP39 | Permanence Could the agreed work be lost or damaged? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Previously accepted area [ha]; Area reported as damaged [ha]; Damage checked in the field; Required repair or response plan recorded; Reported cause and evidence Result: Reported area needing follow-up (ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Previously accepted area = 20 ha; Area reported as damaged = 3 ha; Damage checked in the field = Documented; Required repair or response plan recorded = Missing; Reported cause and evidence = Storm damage to riverbank planting — example. Results: Reported area needing follow-up = 3 ha. Changed input. Change Area reported as damaged = 3.1. Result: Reported area needing follow-up = 3.1 ha. Agree and record the required response. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-010DP39 | Contract design Which service agreement is practical? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Proposed provider payment [LKR/year]; Monitoring and checking cost [LKR/year]; Available annual scheme budget [LKR/year]; Work can be checked with a defined protocol; Rights and voluntary participation documented; Livelihood and environmental safeguards documented; Intended benefit and evidence needed Result: Annual budget left after the proposal; Total annual scheme cost (LKR/year; LKR/year) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Riverbank vegetation care. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Proposed provider payment = 300,000 LKR/year; Monitoring and checking cost = 100,000 LKR/year; Available annual scheme budget = 450,000 LKR/year; Work can be checked with a defined protocol = Documented; Rights and voluntary participation documented = Documented; Livelihood and environmental safeguards documented = Documented; Intended benefit and evidence needed = Riverbank vegetation and soil cover; monitor stream conditions separately. Results: Annual budget left after the proposal = 50,000 LKR/year; Total annual scheme cost = 400,000 LKR/year. Changed input. Change Proposed provider payment = 301,000. Result: Annual budget left after the proposal = 49,000 LKR/year; Total annual scheme cost = 401,000 LKR/year. Compare the benefits and obligations with the parties. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-011DP39 | Payment proposals What payment can we propose? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Area meeting the annual agreement conditions [ha]; Illustrative annual rate per accepted hectare [LKR/ha/year]; Annual cap for this agreement [LKR/year]; Amount already paid for these same annual conditions [LKR]; Independent field-check record documented; Rights and voluntary agreement documented; Funding confirmation documented; Field-check and rate references; Confirmed funds available for this annual proposal [LKR] Result: Calculated annual proposal before payments; Proposal less amount already paid; Amount ready to refer for authorisation (LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Area meeting the annual agreement conditions = 20 ha; Illustrative annual rate per accepted hectare = 12,500 LKR/ha/year; Annual cap for this agreement = 300,000 LKR/year; Amount already paid for these same annual conditions = 0 LKR; Independent field-check record documented = Documented; Rights and voluntary agreement documented = Documented; Funding confirmation documented = Missing; Field-check and rate references = Example field record / draft annual rate schedule 1; Confirmed funds available for this annual proposal = 200,000 LKR. Results: Calculated annual proposal before payments = 250,000 LKR; Proposal less amount already paid = 250,000 LKR; Amount ready to refer for authorisation = Unavailable LKR. Changed input. Change Area meeting the annual agreement conditions = 21. Result: Calculated annual proposal before payments = 262,500 LKR; Proposal less amount already paid = 262,500 LKR; Amount ready to refer for authorisation = Unavailable LKR. Complete the evidence and funding before referral. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required PESImplementation: prototype |
| DEC-DP39-012DP39 | Benefit sharing How would the payment be shared? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Payment available in the proposed plan [LKR]; Proposed farmer-group share [LKR]; Proposed field-worker share [LKR]; Disclosed administration share [LKR]; Unresolved objections [cases]; Affected participants agreed to this version; Sharing-plan version Result: Amount allocated in the draft plan; Amount not allocated; Unresolved objections (LKR; LKR; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Payment available in the proposed plan = 250,000 LKR; Proposed farmer-group share = 200,000 LKR; Proposed field-worker share = 40,000 LKR; Disclosed administration share = 10,000 LKR; Unresolved objections = 2 cases; Affected participants agreed to this version = Missing; Sharing-plan version = Draft benefit-sharing plan 1 — example. Results: Amount allocated in the draft plan = 250,000 LKR; Amount not allocated = 0 LKR; Unresolved objections = 2 cases. Changed input. Change Proposed farmer-group share = 199,000. Result: Amount allocated in the draft plan = 249,000 LKR; Amount not allocated = 1,000 LKR; Unresolved objections = 2 cases. Resolve objections and obtain agreement on this plan. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-013DP39 | Double counting Is the same work being claimed twice? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Parcel or mapped work reference; Other agreement and purpose; Area claimed in this agreement [ha]; Area claimed in the other agreement [ha]; Mapped area common to both claims [ha]; This claim begins; This claim ends; Other claim begins; Other claim ends; Same work and unit confirmed; Both agreements permit the combined claims Result: Overlapping claim area to review; Overlapping claim period (ha; calendar days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Parcel or mapped work reference = Example riverbank plot Laggala 01; Other agreement and purpose = Example second riverbank-care agreement; Area claimed in this agreement = 20 ha; Area claimed in the other agreement = 8 ha; Mapped area common to both claims = 5 ha; This claim begins = 2025-01-01; This claim ends = 2025-12-31; Other claim begins = 2025-06-01; Other claim ends = 2025-12-31; Same work and unit confirmed = Documented; Both agreements permit the combined claims = Missing. Results: Overlapping claim area to review = 5 ha; Overlapping claim period = 214 calendar days. Changed input. Change Mapped area common to both claims = 5.1. Result: Overlapping claim area to review = 5.1 ha; Overlapping claim period = 214 calendar days. Review both agreements before combining the claims. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPEATImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-014DP39 | Monitoring design How should we measure the work and its benefits? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Indicator; Measurement unit; What the indicator measures; When to measure; Estimated annual monitoring cost [LKR/year]; Sampling method and quality checks documented; Comparable baseline available Result: Annual monitoring cost to compare (LKR/year) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Fixed-point ground cover. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Indicator = Fixed-point ground cover; Measurement unit = % ground covered; What the indicator measures = Practice compliance; not proof of cleaner water; When to measure = Same season each year, with quarterly work checks; Estimated annual monitoring cost = 60,000 LKR/year; Sampling method and quality checks documented = Documented; Comparable baseline available = Missing. Results: Annual monitoring cost to compare = 60,000 LKR/year. Changed input. Change Estimated annual monitoring cost = 61,000. Result: Annual monitoring cost to compare = 61,000 LKR/year. Obtain the baseline or complete the sampling protocol. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-015DP39 | Funding sustainability Is there enough money for the full agreement? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Provider payments, checking and administration per year [LKR/year]; Agreement funding period [years]; Confirmed funding for that full period [LKR]; Money actually received under that commitment [LKR]; Eligible expenditure already recorded [LKR] Result: Funding still to secure; Total funding needed for the full period; Committed money not yet received; Received money not yet spent (LKR; LKR; LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Provider payments, checking and administration per year = 400,000 LKR/year; Agreement funding period = 3 years; Confirmed funding for that full period = 900,000 LKR; Money actually received under that commitment = 200,000 LKR; Eligible expenditure already recorded = 150,000 LKR. Results: Funding still to secure = 300,000 LKR; Total funding needed for the full period = 1,200,000 LKR; Committed money not yet received = 700,000 LKR; Received money not yet spent = 50,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Provider payments, checking and administration per year = 401,000. Result: Funding still to secure = 303,000 LKR; Total funding needed for the full period = 1,203,000 LKR; Committed money not yet received = 700,000 LKR; Received money not yet spent = 50,000 LKR. Secure the full-period funding gap. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FUNDINGImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-016DP39 | Provider safeguards Could participation harm a household or its rights? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Land and resource-use rights understood; Food-production effects checked; Income and labour effects checked; Women and vulnerable groups can participate; Voluntary informed participation recorded; Accessible complaint route recorded; Safeguard review reference Result: Safeguard items still to resolve (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Land and resource-use rights understood = Documented; Food-production effects checked = Missing; Income and labour effects checked = Documented; Women and vulnerable groups can participate = Documented; Voluntary informed participation recorded = Documented; Accessible complaint route recorded = Documented; Safeguard review reference = Draft livelihood and rights review — example. Results: Safeguard items still to resolve = 1 items. Changed input. Change Land and resource-use rights understood = Missing. Result: Safeguard items still to resolve = 2 items. Resolve the listed missing or conflicting evidence. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-017DP39 | Grievances and appeals Which complaints need a response? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Complaint; Complaint received; Response due under the recorded procedure; Review date; Complaint closed; Responsible contact role; Appeal route Result: Calendar days past response deadline; Calendar days since receipt (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Complaint = Question about the draft benefit-sharing plan; Complaint received = 2025-06-01; Response due under the recorded procedure = 2025-06-15; Review date = 2025-06-30; Complaint closed = No; Responsible contact role = Scheme grievance focal point — example; Appeal route = Independent appeal role to be agreed. Results: Calendar days past response deadline = 15 days; Calendar days since receipt = 29 days. Changed input. Change Review date = 2025-07-01. Result: Calendar days past response deadline = 16 days; Calendar days since receipt = 30 days. Follow up the overdue response with the responsible role. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-018DP39 | Independent review Is the checker independent? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Who prepared the claim; Who checks the claim; Checking role and appointment documented; Interests and independence checks documented; Checking protocol documented; Signed findings recorded; Independence review reference Result: Independence items to resolve (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Who prepared the claim = Provider monitoring officer — example; Who checks the claim = Independent watershed review team — example; Checking role and appointment documented = Documented; Interests and independence checks documented = Missing; Checking protocol documented = Documented; Signed findings recorded = Documented; Independence review reference = Example appointment and interest-declaration record. Results: Independence items to resolve = 1 items. Changed input. Change Checking role and appointment documented = Missing. Result: Independence items to resolve = 2 items. Resolve the independence concerns before relying on the check. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-019DP39 | Renewal decisions Should the agreement continue, change or close? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Choice to review; Estimated next-period cost or closure cost [LKR]; Results and outstanding obligations reviewed; Provider feedback reviewed; Funding or closure resources confirmed; Work or commitments that still need attention Result: Cost of this choice to compare (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Renew the agreement. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Choice to review = Renew the agreement; Estimated next-period cost or closure cost = 400,000 LKR; Results and outstanding obligations reviewed = Documented; Provider feedback reviewed = Documented; Funding or closure resources confirmed = Missing; Work or commitments that still need attention = Complete outstanding field checks before any renewal. Results: Cost of this choice to compare = 400,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Estimated next-period cost or closure cost = 401,000. Result: Cost of this choice to compare = 401,000 LKR. Resolve results, feedback or funding gaps. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP39-020DP39 | Scheme records Do the service name, unit and agreement match? Inputs and exampleAgreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Name used in the source; Name in the agreement; Unit used in the source; Unit required by the agreement; Matching meaning confirmed by the data owner; Definition and mapping reference Result: Definition issue to resolve (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama farmer group. Agreement and version = Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1; Who carries out the work = Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example; Who funds the agreement = Downstream water-user fund — example; Name used in the source = Riverbank restoration; Name in the agreement = Annual riverbank vegetation care; Unit used in the source = ha planted; Unit required by the agreement = ha meeting annual care conditions; Matching meaning confirmed by the data owner = Missing; Definition and mapping reference = Draft service definition / agreement version 1. Results: Definition issue to resolve = 1 items. Changed input. Change Matching meaning confirmed by the data owner = Documented. Result: Definition issue to resolve = 0 items. Retain both originals and the documented mapping. Missing input. Omit Agreement and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Scheme technical lead, independent verifier and rights/finance reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: PES-FAO |
| DEC-DP40-001DP40 | Dataset selection Select datasets suitable for spatial and temporal comparison Inputs and exampleCoverage; Coverage evidence reference; dates; dates evidence reference; methods; methods evidence reference; units; units evidence reference; sampling; sampling evidence reference; rights; rights evidence reference; source versions; source versions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — dataset selection. Coverage = Missing; Coverage evidence reference = ; dates = Documented; dates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; methods = Documented; methods evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; units = Documented; units evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; sampling = Documented; sampling evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; rights = Documented; rights evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; source versions = Documented; source versions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Coverage = Documented; Coverage evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Coverage: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-002DP40 | Intervention research Compare validated soil and forest outcomes across interventions Inputs and exampleTreatment Comparable soil-carbon stock before [t C/ha]; Treatment Comparable soil-carbon stock after [t C/ha]; Comparison Comparable soil-carbon stock before [t C/ha]; Comparison Comparable soil-carbon stock after [t C/ha]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (t C/ha) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — intervention research. Treatment Comparable soil-carbon stock before = 42 t C/ha; Treatment Comparable soil-carbon stock after = 59 t C/ha; Comparison Comparable soil-carbon stock before = 39 t C/ha; Comparison Comparable soil-carbon stock after = 46 t C/ha; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Comparable soil-carbon stock /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 10 t C/ha. Changed input. Change Treatment Comparable soil-carbon stock before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 t C/ha. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Comparable soil-carbon stock before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP40-003DP40 | Sampling limitations Identify biodiversity comparisons limited by survey design Inputs and exampleObserved distinct species [species]; Survey effort [hours]; Survey protocol and version; Survey season and taxonomic scope; All planned survey visits completed Result: Observed richness; Recorded effort (species; hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — sampling limitations. Observed distinct species = 28 species; Survey effort = 18 hours; Survey protocol and version = Sample protocol1; Survey season and taxonomic scope = Sample matched season / taxon group; All planned survey visits completed = Yes. Results: Observed richness = 28 species; Recorded effort = 18 hours. Changed input. Change Observed distinct species = 29. Result: Observed richness = 29 species; Recorded effort = 18 hours. Review survey comparability. Missing input. Omit Observed distinct species: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Observed richness is not population size or occupancy. Comparable effort alone does not remove detection bias or establish a biodiversity trend. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BIODIVERSITYImplementation: prototype Method source: DD-GBIF |
| DEC-DP40-004DP40 | Expert review Prioritize scientific estimates awaiting independent assessment Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — expert review. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-005DP40 | Research questions Select questions aligned with institutional evidence gaps Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Study a documented crop-water gap. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional study a documented crop-water gap option: compare the documented Decision need, literature gaps.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-006DP40 | Ethics and permissions Check research approvals before collecting restricted evidence Inputs and exampleProtocol; Protocol evidence reference; participants; participants evidence reference; consent; consent evidence reference; permits; permits evidence reference; ethics review; ethics review evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — ethics and permissions. Protocol = Missing; Protocol evidence reference = ; participants = Documented; participants evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; consent = Documented; consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; permits = Documented; permits evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; ethics review = Documented; ethics review evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; location = Documented; location evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; conditions = Documented; conditions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Protocol = Documented; Protocol evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Protocol: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-007DP40 | Sampling design Compare designs for adequate precision and representation Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Stratified random design. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional stratified random design option: compare the documented Population frame, strata.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-008DP40 | Model validation Require independent evidence before applying predictive models Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [kg/ha]; Independently reproduced value [kg/ha]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [kg/ha]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (kg/ha; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — model validation. Earlier/source value = 100 kg/ha; Independently reproduced value = 90 kg/ha; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable kg/ha measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 kg/ha; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -10 kg/ha; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 kg/ha; Relative change = -10.891 %. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-009DP40 | Data cleaning Resolve contradictory measurements without altering originals Inputs and exampleOriginal source measurement [t C/ha]; Independent comparison measurement [t C/ha]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition Result: Difference; Relative change (t C/ha; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — data cleaning. Original source measurement = 100 t C/ha; Independent comparison measurement = 90 t C/ha; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable t C/ha measure; same input scope. Results: Difference = -10 t C/ha; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Original source measurement = 101. Result: Difference = -11 t C/ha; Relative change = -10.891 %. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original source measurement: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MISMATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-010DP40 | Reproducibility Reproduce reported results from exact evidence versions Inputs and exampleEarlier/source value [t C/ha]; Independently reproduced value [t C/ha]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [t C/ha]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer Result: Difference; Relative change (t C/ha; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — reproducibility. Earlier/source value = 100 t C/ha; Independently reproduced value = 90 t C/ha; Original measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Comparison measurement unit = Sample matching unit; Compared measure and definition = Sample comparable t C/ha measure; same input scope; Documented absolute comparison tolerance = 0.01 t C/ha; Expected input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Reproduced input/method version = Sample input1 /method1; Original result creator = Preparation officer; Independent reproducer = Independent checking officer. Results: Difference = -10 t C/ha; Relative change = -10 %. Changed input. Change Earlier/source value = 101. Result: Difference = -11 t C/ha; Relative change = -10.891 %. Investigate reproduction difference. Missing input. Omit Earlier/source value: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPRODUCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-011DP40 | Research collaboration Match institutional research needs with qualified expertise Inputs and exampleDocumented skills/expertise; Task requirement; Available qualified effort [hours]; Required effort [hours]; Conflicts, clearance and mandate; Availability begins; Availability ends; Task window begins; Task window ends Result: Available minus required hours (hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — research collaboration. Documented skills/expertise = Sample required skill; Task requirement = Sample required skill; Available qualified effort = 24 hours; Required effort = 16 hours; Conflicts, clearance and mandate = Unresolved; Availability begins = 2025-06-01; Availability ends = 2025-06-20; Task window begins = 2025-06-05; Task window ends = 2025-06-18. Results: Available minus required hours = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Available qualified effort = 24.24. Result: Available minus required hours = 8.24 hours. Resolve specification, window or conditions. Missing input. Omit Documented skills/expertise: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-012DP40 | Causal interpretation Determine whether evidence supports causal claims Inputs and exampleStudy design; Study design evidence reference; comparison; comparison evidence reference; baseline; baseline evidence reference; confounders; confounders evidence reference; attrition; attrition evidence reference; sensitivity; sensitivity evidence reference; assumptions; assumptions evidence reference Result: Study evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — causal interpretation. Study design = Missing; Study design evidence reference = ; comparison = Documented; comparison evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; baseline = Documented; baseline evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; confounders = Documented; confounders evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; attrition = Documented; attrition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; sensitivity = Documented; sensitivity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; assumptions = Documented; assumptions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Study evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Study design = Documented; Study design evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Study evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Study design: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP40-013DP40 | Uncertainty priorities Choose additional measurements that reduce material uncertainty Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Repeat the most influential measurement. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional repeat the most influential measurement option: compare the documented Model sensitivity, parameter uncertainty.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-014DP40 | Research funding Compare study proposals under budget and evidence constraints Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Small controlled pilot. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional small controlled pilot option: compare the documented Proposal, scientific value.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-015DP40 | Data publication Review consent rights and sensitivity before releasing data Inputs and exampleDataset; Dataset evidence reference; license; license evidence reference; participant consent; participant consent evidence reference; species sensitivity; species sensitivity evidence reference; restrictions; restrictions evidence reference; approval; approval evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — data publication. Dataset = Missing; Dataset evidence reference = ; license = Documented; license evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; participant consent = Documented; participant consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; species sensitivity = Documented; species sensitivity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; restrictions = Documented; restrictions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; approval = Documented; approval evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Dataset = Documented; Dataset evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Dataset: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-016DP40 | Longitudinal studies Prevent loss of critical follow-up observations Inputs and exampleOriginal distinct cohort [participants]; Known continuing original members [participants]; Known withdrawals [participants]; Unknown follow-up [participants]; Later entrants outside original cohort [participants] Result: Confirmed continuation lower bound; Continuation upper bound; Unknown follow-up (%; %; participants) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — longitudinal studies. Original distinct cohort = 450 participants; Known continuing original members = 351 participants; Known withdrawals = 70 participants; Unknown follow-up = 29 participants; Later entrants outside original cohort = 18 participants. Results: Confirmed continuation lower bound = 78 %; Continuation upper bound = 84.444 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 participants. Changed input. Change Known continuing original members = 352; Known withdrawals = 69. Result: Confirmed continuation lower bound = 78.222 %; Continuation upper bound = 84.667 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 participants. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original distinct cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SURVIVALImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-017DP40 | Laboratory quality Verify analytical controls supporting research measurements Inputs and exampleSample custody; Sample custody evidence reference; standards; standards evidence reference; blanks; blanks evidence reference; duplicates; duplicates evidence reference; calibration; calibration evidence reference; method; method evidence reference; accreditation; accreditation evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — laboratory quality. Sample custody = Missing; Sample custody evidence reference = ; standards = Documented; standards evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; blanks = Documented; blanks evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; duplicates = Documented; duplicates evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; calibration = Documented; calibration evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; method = Documented; method evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; accreditation = Documented; accreditation evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Sample custody = Documented; Sample custody evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Sample custody: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required INSPECTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-018DP40 | Knowledge transfer Prepare evidence packages for specific institutional decisions Inputs and exampleTarget institutional decision; Target institutional decision evidence reference; Exact dataset, method and parameter versions; Exact dataset, method and parameter versions evidence reference; Findings and units; Findings and units evidence reference; Observation period and geographic coverage; Observation period and geographic coverage evidence reference; Limitations and uncertainty; Limitations and uncertainty evidence reference; Source rights and permitted sharing; Source rights and permitted sharing evidence reference; Named institutional recipient and review purpose; Named institutional recipient and review purpose evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — knowledge transfer. Target institutional decision = Missing; Target institutional decision evidence reference = ; Exact dataset, method and parameter versions = Documented; Exact dataset, method and parameter versions evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Findings and units = Documented; Findings and units evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Observation period and geographic coverage = Documented; Observation period and geographic coverage evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Limitations and uncertainty = Documented; Limitations and uncertainty evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Source rights and permitted sharing = Documented; Source rights and permitted sharing evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Named institutional recipient and review purpose = Documented; Named institutional recipient and review purpose evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Target institutional decision = Documented; Target institutional decision evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Target institutional decision: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP40-019DP40 | Research outcomes Evaluate use and effects of research outputs Inputs and exampleTreatment Verified research recommendation uptake before [%]; Treatment Verified research recommendation uptake after [%]; Comparison Verified research recommendation uptake before [%]; Comparison Verified research recommendation uptake after [%]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (%) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — research outcomes. Treatment Verified research recommendation uptake before = 42 %; Treatment Verified research recommendation uptake after = 59 %; Comparison Verified research recommendation uptake before = 39 %; Comparison Verified research recommendation uptake after = 46 %; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Verified research recommendation uptake /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 10 %. Changed input. Change Treatment Verified research recommendation uptake before = 42.42. Result: Difference in changes = 9.58 %. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Verified research recommendation uptake before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP40-020DP40 | Scientific vocabulary Resolve inconsistent scientific variables and taxonomic labels Inputs and exampleOriginal variable; Original variable evidence reference; definition; definition evidence reference; unit; unit evidence reference; taxon reference; taxon reference evidence reference; edition; edition evidence reference; reviewed mapping; reviewed mapping evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — scientific vocabulary. Original variable = Missing; Original variable evidence reference = ; definition = Documented; definition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; unit = Documented; unit evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; taxon reference = Documented; taxon reference evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; edition = Documented; edition evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; reviewed mapping = Documented; reviewed mapping evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Original variable = Documented; Original variable evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Original variable: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CLASSIFYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-001DP41 | Livelihood reach Target communities missing intended livelihood support Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — livelihood reach. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-002DP41 | Community feedback Prioritize unresolved feedback and complaints Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community feedback. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-003DP41 | Training follow-up Verify practical outcomes after community training Inputs and exampleDistinct original community programme in the stated cohort [cases]; Those original cohort members with documented review [cases]; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition [cases]; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown [cases] Result: Verified completion share; Not verified complete; Original cases awaiting review; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete (%; cases; cases; cases) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — training follow-up. Distinct original community programme in the stated cohort = 180 cases; Those original cohort members with documented review = 132 cases; Those reviewed members meeting the stated completion definition = 96 cases; Original cohort members whose follow-up is unknown = 12 cases. Results: Verified completion share = 53.333 %; Not verified complete = 84 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 48 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Changed input. Change Distinct original community programme in the stated cohort = 181. Result: Verified completion share = 53.039 %; Not verified complete = 85 cases; Original cases awaiting review = 49 cases; Reviewed cases not confirmed complete = 36 cases. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Distinct original community programme in the stated cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people. The original cohort and nested review/completion stages must match; an uncompleted record is not automatically overdue. Unknown follow-up is a subset, not an extra stage. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required FLOWImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-004DP41 | Service delays Escalate locations with prolonged community-service delays Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — service delays. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required QUEUEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-005DP41 | Needs assessment Compare community priorities using inclusive evidence Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Essential water-service improvement. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional essential water-service improvement option: compare the documented Needs, affected groups.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-006DP41 | Participation Resolve barriers to meaningful community participation Inputs and exampleDistinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible Result: Unresolved issues; Response share (issues; %) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — participation. Distinct relevant people invited = 95 people; People who responded = 68 people; Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Proposal/version being discussed = Sample proposal1; Required participation channels accessible = Unknown. Results: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 71.579 %. Changed input. Change Distinct relevant people invited = 96. Result: Unresolved issues = 16 issues; Response share = 70.833 %. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Missing input. Omit Distinct relevant people invited: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-007DP41 | Beneficiary selection Prepare complete evidence for authorized programme selection Inputs and exampleProgramme criteria; Programme criteria evidence reference; household consent; household consent evidence reference; needs evidence; needs evidence evidence reference; prior support; prior support evidence reference; appeals; appeals evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — beneficiary selection. Programme criteria = Missing; Programme criteria evidence reference = ; household consent = Documented; household consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; needs evidence = Documented; needs evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; prior support = Documented; prior support evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; appeals = Documented; appeals evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Programme criteria = Documented; Programme criteria evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Programme criteria: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ELIGIBILITYImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule Retained context sourcesLOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S13, S47, S56 Context alone does not validate the formula. |
| DEC-DP41-008DP41 | Support overlap Coordinate complementary assistance and review potential duplication Inputs and examplePermitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit Result: Overlapping days (days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — support overlap. Permitted recipient/service reference = Laggala Pallegama — support overlap; 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. Results: Overlapping days = 61 days. Changed input. Change Other support period begins = 2025-01-01; Other support period ends = 2025-06-30. Result: Overlapping days = 181 days. Review possible overlap. Missing input. Omit Permitted recipient/service reference: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required REPEATImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-009DP41 | Safeguarding referrals Route sensitive concerns through authorized confidential channels Inputs and exampleConfidential case; Confidential case evidence reference; consent; consent evidence reference; urgency; urgency evidence reference; designated receiver; designated receiver evidence reference; referral; referral evidence reference; follow-up; follow-up evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — safeguarding referrals. Confidential case = Missing; Confidential case evidence reference = ; consent = Documented; consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; urgency = Documented; urgency evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; designated receiver = Documented; designated receiver evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; referral = Documented; referral evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; follow-up = Documented; follow-up evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Confidential case = Documented; Confidential case evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Confidential case: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required ACCESSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-010DP41 | Climate adaptation Compare community-led adaptation alternatives Inputs and exampleOption cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects Result: Budget remaining after option (LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Protect a community water source. Option cost = 1,500,000 LKR; Available budget = 1,800,000 LKR; Mandatory constraints = Met; Expected benefit and its evidence = Fictional protect a community water source option: compare the documented Climate exposure, local knowledge.; Resource needs and adverse effects = Review access, staffing, recurring cost and the applicable safeguards.. Results: Budget remaining after option = 300,000 LKR. Changed input. Change Option cost = 1,500,001. Result: Budget remaining after option = 299,999 LKR. Compare feasible trade-offs. Missing input. Omit Option cost: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required OPTIONSImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-011DP41 | Community assets Prioritize repairs to shared livelihood and water assets Inputs and exampleReceived or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed Result: Open days past due; Calendar age (days; days) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community assets. Received or defect observed = 2025-04-01; Recorded due date = 2025-06-01; Assessment date = 2025-06-30; Case/work closed = No; Documented critical unresolved condition = Unknown; Responsible office or maintainer = Proposed responsible office; Actual closure date when closed = . Results: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 90 days. Changed input. Change Received or defect observed = 2025-03-31. Result: Open days past due = 29 days; Calendar age = 91 days. Follow up overdue case. Missing input. Omit Received or defect observed: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MAINTENANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-012DP41 | Volunteer deployment Match volunteer capacity to approved community tasks Inputs and exampleDocumented skills/expertise; Task requirement; Available qualified effort [hours]; Required effort [hours]; Conflicts, clearance and mandate; Availability begins; Availability ends; Task window begins; Task window ends Result: Available minus required hours (hours) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — volunteer deployment. Documented skills/expertise = Sample required skill; Task requirement = Sample required skill; Available qualified effort = 24 hours; Required effort = 16 hours; Conflicts, clearance and mandate = Unresolved; Availability begins = 2025-06-01; Availability ends = 2025-06-20; Task window begins = 2025-06-05; Task window ends = 2025-06-18. Results: Available minus required hours = 8 hours. Changed input. Change Available qualified effort = 24.24. Result: Available minus required hours = 8.24 hours. Resolve specification, window or conditions. Missing input. Omit Documented skills/expertise: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-013DP41 | Programme finance Reconcile community grants and verified expenditure Inputs and exampleOpening cash/receivable balance [LKR]; Receipts and documented additions [LKR]; Payments and documented reductions [LKR]; Other documented non-overlapping adjustments [LKR]; Independently recorded closing balance [LKR] Result: Calculated closing balance; Recorded minus calculated closing (LKR; LKR) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — programme finance. Opening cash/receivable balance = 160,000 LKR; Receipts and documented additions = 48,000 LKR; Payments and documented reductions = 35,000 LKR; Other documented non-overlapping adjustments = 9,000 LKR; Independently recorded closing balance = 163,500 LKR. Results: Calculated closing balance = 164,000 LKR; Recorded minus calculated closing = -500 LKR. Changed input. Change Opening cash/receivable balance = 160,001. Result: Calculated closing balance = 164,001 LKR; Recorded minus calculated closing = -501 LKR. Reconcile closing balance. Missing input. Omit Opening cash/receivable balance: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Use the same physical boundary, period and units. A residual is a reconciliation issue, not automatically a measured loss. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required BALANCEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-014DP41 | Market access Identify feasible market links for community enterprises Inputs and exampleOffered product and grade; Required product and grade; Available uncommitted quantity [kg]; Required quantity [kg]; Supply available from; Supply available until; Delivery window begins; Delivery window ends; Required quality, rights and conditions Result: Supply minus demand (kg) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — market access. Offered product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Required product and grade = Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain; Available uncommitted quantity = 1,200 kg; Required quantity = 1,500 kg; Supply available from = 2025-06-01; Supply available until = 2025-06-20; Delivery window begins = 2025-06-05; Delivery window ends = 2025-06-18; Required quality, rights and conditions = Met. Results: Supply minus demand = -300 kg. Changed input. Change Available uncommitted quantity = 1,201. Result: Supply minus demand = -299 kg. Review quantity/capacity gap. Missing input. Omit Offered product and grade: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required MATCHImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-015DP41 | Water and sanitation Target communities lacking reliable safe service access Inputs and exampleRequired eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households] Result: Verified coverage; Known uncovered; Unknown coverage (%; households; households) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — water and sanitation. Required eligible frame = 100 households; Distinct members of that frame covered = 65 households; Frame members with unknown coverage = 5 households. Results: Verified coverage = 65 %; Known uncovered = 30 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Changed input. Change Required eligible frame = 101. Result: Verified coverage = 64.356 %; Known uncovered = 31 households; Unknown coverage = 5 households. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Required eligible frame: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Household reach alone does not establish reliability, water quality, accessibility or safety. Competent evidence of the agreed service conditions is required separately. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required COVERAGEImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-016DP41 | Disaster preparedness Address gaps in local warning and evacuation arrangements Inputs and exampleOfficial hazard information; Official hazard information evidence reference; warning access; warning access evidence reference; safe routes; safe routes evidence reference; vulnerable needs; vulnerable needs evidence reference; capacity; capacity evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — disaster preparedness. Official hazard information = Missing; Official hazard information evidence reference = ; warning access = Documented; warning access evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; safe routes = Documented; safe routes evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; vulnerable needs = Documented; vulnerable needs evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; capacity = Documented; capacity evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Documented unresolved critical condition = Unknown; Evidence observation date = 2025-06-30; Existing control and its evidence = Sample documented control; Competent recipient = Responsible specialist / duty authority. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Official hazard information = Documented; Official hazard information evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Official hazard information: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required RISKImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-017DP41 | Programme retention Follow up participants lost from continuing support programmes Inputs and exampleOriginal distinct cohort [participants]; Known continuing original members [participants]; Known withdrawals [participants]; Unknown follow-up [participants]; Later entrants outside original cohort [participants] Result: Confirmed continuation lower bound; Continuation upper bound; Unknown follow-up (%; %; participants) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — programme retention. Original distinct cohort = 450 participants; Known continuing original members = 351 participants; Known withdrawals = 70 participants; Unknown follow-up = 29 participants; Later entrants outside original cohort = 18 participants. Results: Confirmed continuation lower bound = 78 %; Continuation upper bound = 84.444 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 participants. Changed input. Change Known continuing original members = 352; Known withdrawals = 69. Result: Confirmed continuation lower bound = 78.222 %; Continuation upper bound = 84.667 %; Unknown follow-up = 29 participants. Review evidence. Missing input. Omit Original distinct cohort: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required SURVIVALImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-018DP41 | Outcome evaluation Evaluate whether programmes produced sustained community benefits Inputs and exampleTreatment Consistently measured livelihood outcome before [LKR/household]; Treatment Consistently measured livelihood outcome after [LKR/household]; Comparison Consistently measured livelihood outcome before [LKR/household]; Comparison Consistently measured livelihood outcome after [LKR/household]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis Result: Difference in changes (LKR/household) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — outcome evaluation. Treatment Consistently measured livelihood outcome before = 420,000 LKR/household; Treatment Consistently measured livelihood outcome after = 590,000 LKR/household; Comparison Consistently measured livelihood outcome before = 390,000 LKR/household; Comparison Consistently measured livelihood outcome after = 460,000 LKR/household; Study design and comparability evidence = Missing; Outcome definition, method and reference basis = Consistently measured livelihood outcome /example matching definition1. Results: Difference in changes = 100,000 LKR/household. Changed input. Change Treatment Consistently measured livelihood outcome before = 420,001. Result: Difference in changes = 99,999 LKR/household. Supply study-design evidence. Missing input. Omit Treatment Consistently measured livelihood outcome before: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits The arithmetic alone does not establish causation. Design, parallel trends, confounding, attrition, uncertainty and adverse effects need appropriate evidence. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic World Bank · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170 Institution publication - World Bank IMPACTImplementation: prototype Method source: S92 |
| DEC-DP41-019DP41 | Partner coordination Resolve unclear ownership of cross-organization actions Inputs and exampleAction and version; Action and version evidence reference; Participating organizations; Participating organizations evidence reference; Agreed responsible role; Agreed responsible role evidence reference; Unresolved mandate or dependency; Unresolved mandate or dependency evidence reference; Authority and handover evidence; Authority and handover evidence evidence reference; Completion and follow-up evidence; Completion and follow-up evidence evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — partner coordination. Action and version = Missing; Action and version evidence reference = ; Participating organizations = Documented; Participating organizations evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Agreed responsible role = Documented; Agreed responsible role evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Unresolved mandate or dependency = Documented; Unresolved mandate or dependency evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Authority and handover evidence = Documented; Authority and handover evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; Completion and follow-up evidence = Documented; Completion and follow-up evidence evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Action and version = Documented; Action and version evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Action and version: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required CONSENTImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
| DEC-DP41-020DP41 | Community evidence Improve completeness of consented community monitoring records Inputs and exampleRecord; Record evidence reference; source; source evidence reference; consent; consent evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; period; period evidence reference; units; units evidence reference; reviewer; reviewer evidence reference; revision; revision evidence reference Result: Evidence gaps (items) Worked example. Fictional 2025 example. Laggala Pallegama — community evidence. Record = Missing; Record evidence reference = ; source = Documented; source evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; consent = Documented; consent evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; location = Documented; location evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; period = Documented; period evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; units = Documented; units evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; reviewer = Documented; reviewer evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025; revision = Documented; revision evidence reference = Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025. Results: Evidence gaps = 1 items. Changed input. Change Record = Documented; Record evidence reference = Fictional changed-evidence reference / version 2. Result: Evidence gaps = 0 items. Refer for specialist review. Missing input. Omit Record: required input is missing; calculated outputs are withheld. Map context. No map inserted into this decision example Limits Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity. Missing required inputs block results; missing is not zero. Keep exact source, boundary, definition and method versions. Community programme lead, participant representatives and safeguarding reviewer | Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending Validation required Validation required METADATAImplementation: prototype Method source: Project proposed rule |
Retained method references
All 139 method IDs are retained. Version 1.6 aligns NF001 and NF002 with the fictional rice-plot example and distinguishes grouped mock inputs from future plot-identity validation. Published core methods need no repeat proof. Confirm local settings and intended use; a reference does not prove implementation.
139 method references
| Method | Formula or procedure | Sources and pending review |
|---|---|---|
| NF001 Rice plots by seed category | COUNT(DISTINCT eligible_plot_id) GROUP BY primary_rice_seed_category, period, area Inputs Operational procedure: eligible rice plot identity, one primary rice seed category, period, area and exclusion status. Mock: supplied fictional grouped plot counts. Unit plots Limits The operational procedure counts each eligible plot once. The mock uses fictional pre-grouped disjoint counts for categories A to F; it does not demonstrate underlying plot-identity deduplication. Unknown, missing or multiple categories are excluded with a declared exclusion status. Do not infer hectare coverage or population adoption from plot counts. | Validation required Project-proposed operational count and supplied grouped-count demonstration. The cited agriculture tables provide context, not direct validation of this plot-count example. Local category definitions, coverage and scientific use remain pending E01 and source custodian review. Project definition: retained catalogue NF001 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-01. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COMPOSITION |
| NF002 Rice seed category share | 100 × eligible_plots_in_category / total_eligible_classified_plots Inputs Compatible eligible plot counts by one primary rice seed category; same period and area; explicit exclusions Unit % Limits Denominator is the sum of eligible mutually exclusive category counts. Missing, unknown or multiple-category observations are excluded and reported, never treated as zero. Zero eligible total has no defined share; show unavailable and no composition chart. | Validation required Project demonstration share. The cited agriculture tables provide context, not direct validation of this plot-count denominator. Local fitness and source rights remain pending E01 and source custodian review. Project definition: retained catalogue NF002 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-01. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COMPOSITION |
| NF003 Paddy area under major irrigation | SUM(sown_area where irrigation_type=major) / SUM(sown_area) × 100 Inputs Sown area; irrigation type; season Unit % Limits Do not confuse major irrigation with agrarian minor tanks | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF003 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-01. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COMPOSITION |
| NF004 Paddy area under minor irrigation | SUM(sown_area where irrigation_type=minor) / SUM(sown_area) × 100 Inputs Sown area; irrigation type; season Unit % Limits Source category definitions and incomplete records matter | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF004 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-01. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COMPOSITION |
| NF005 Rainfed paddy cultivation share | 100 × rainfed_sown_area / all_classified_sown_area Inputs Paddy sown area; irrigation class Unit % Limits Classification must separate rainfed/major/minor as documented | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF005 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-01. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COMPOSITION |
| NF006 Sowing-method adoption share | 100 × sown_area_using_method / eligible_sown_area Inputs Sown area by sowing method; season Unit % Limits Not equivalent to demonstrated yields or farmer adoption identities | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF006 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-01. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COMPOSITION |
| NF009 Paddy cultivation intensity | Total seasonal planted/cultivated area across reference year / physical suitable cultivated land area Inputs Annual multiple-season cultivation areas; physical area Unit times/year Limits Denominator must be a nonduplicated physical area; double-cropping is intentional in numerator | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF009 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-01. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: YIELD |
| NF012 Crop forecast error, absolute | ABS(predicted_production - later_estimated_production) Inputs Dated forecast; matched later reference estimate Unit tonnes Limits Do not compare with another vintage/revision or different crop | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF012 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-01. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. |
| NF014 Cultivation variable cost per hectare | SUM(variable_cost_lkr) / cultivated_area_ha Inputs Enterprise/season input costs; relevant area Unit LKR/ha Limits Cost definition and source period explicit | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF014 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-02. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COST |
| NF015 Total production cost per kilogram | SUM(eligible_production_cost) / saleable_output_kg Inputs Labour, machinery, input and other defined costs; output Unit LKR/kg Limits Total vs variable cost must be distinguished; nonzero output | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF015 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-02. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COST |
| NF016 Input cost contribution by category | 100 × cost_category / SUM(all_recorded_cost_categories) Inputs Cost records by type Unit % Limits Avoid double counting nested categories | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF016 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-02. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COMPOSITION |
| NF020 Cultivation delay relative to calendar | Actual sowing date - published intended sowing date Inputs Crop calendar; field sow date Unit days Limits A published calendar is guidance not a mandatory deadline | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF020 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-02. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF021 Post-harvest loss percentage | 100 × recorded_lost_quantity / (saleable_quantity + lost_quantity) Inputs Harvest-batch weights; losses; disposition Unit % Limits Denominator represents same batch and measurement method | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF021 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-02. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: LOSS |
| NF022 Gross margin ratio | 100 × gross_margin / calculated_revenue Inputs Gross margin and revenue from compatible enterprise/season Unit % Limits Revenue must be positive, distinguish gross from net | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF022 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-02. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: MARGIN |
| NF023 RUSLE annual sheet/rill soil loss | A = R × K × LS × C × P Inputs Rainfall erosivity; soil erodibility; slope length/steepness; cover; practices Unit t/ha/year Limits Empirical factors must be calibrated; does not quantify gullies or sediment delivered to a river | Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) The FAO toolbox publishes the RUSLE factor equation and credits USDA. This is not proof of local factor calibration or a complete RUSLE2 implementation. Published method: NF-SOURCE-03 Project definition: retained catalogue NF023 Recorded context sourceFAO equation checked; units, local factors and calibration remain pending E01/E02. Published core needs no repeat proof. Confirm local inputs, units and settings under E01; E02/E03 where relevant. See Section 6. Candidate family: EROSION |
| NF024 Conservation-practice soil-loss comparison | A_baseline - A_intervention; use documented RUSLE scenarios Inputs Baseline & scenario factor sets R,K,LS,C,P Unit t/ha/year difference Limits Predicted reduction only, not observed actual benefit | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF024 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-03. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: EROSION |
| NF025 Area affected by modeled erosion class | SUM(valid_cell_area classified into reviewed erosion class) Inputs RUSLE output grid; approved class breaks Unit ha Limits Do not invent risk classes or mix grid sizes | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF025 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-03. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: EROSION |
| NF026 Land-use class area share | 100 × area_of_class / total_valid_classified_area Inputs Land-use geometry, category, selected extent Unit % Limits Avoid overlap double count; classification scheme versions matter | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF026 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-04 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COMPOSITION |
| NF027 Land-use conversion rate | (class_area_end - class_area_start) / years Inputs Aligned thematic layers, study interval Unit ha/year Limits End-start net is not gross conversion; keep transition matrix | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF027 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-04 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: CHANGE |
| NF028 Area of prohibited/conditional overlapping use | Area(land_use_geometry ∩ valid_constraint_geometry) Inputs Permitted land-use and constraints layers Unit ha Limits Overlap supports screening, not a legal determination | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF028 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-04 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: OVERLAY |
| NF029 Available assessed site area | Total candidate area - spatially unioned excluded area Inputs Candidate polygon; approved exclusions Unit ha Limits Spatial union avoids counting overlapping exclusions twice | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF029 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-04 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF030 Existing land-use-plan geographic coverage | 100 × area_with_valid_plan / eligible_planning_area Inputs Plan geometry/version; planning boundary Unit % Limits Plan existence does not mean accepted intervention | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF030 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-04 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COVERAGE |
| NF031 Land-parcel slope group share | 100 × parcel_area_in_slope_class / total_valid_parcel_area Inputs Slope raster; parcel; class definition Unit % Limits DEM accuracy and slope class thresholds must be disclosed | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF031 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-04 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COMPOSITION |
| NF032 Geographic source classification disagreement | 100 × area where two classified maps disagree / comparable valid area Inputs Aligned land cover / land use rasters Unit % Limits Difference includes classification method; not necessarily actual change | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF032 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-04 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: MISMATCH |
| NF034 SOC stock in soil layer | SOC concentration × soil bulk density × soil depth × (1 - coarse_fragment_fraction) × unit conversion Inputs Lab SOC; bulk density; sample depth; coarse fragment fraction Unit t C/ha Limits Same depth and compatible lab method; not derived from soil colour | Institution publication - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) IPCC describes this soil-stock product on printed page 2.37. Confirm units and the mass basis of coarse fragments. Published method: S79 Project definition: retained catalogue NF034 Recorded context sourceUNCCD context checked; IPCC source S79 supplies soil-stock method detail. E01/E02 approval pending. Published core needs no repeat proof. Confirm local inputs, units and settings under E01; E02/E03 where relevant. See Section 6. Candidate family: SOILCARBON |
| NF035 Soil organic carbon stock change | SOC_stock_end - SOC_stock_start Inputs Comparable stock profiles with aligned depths Unit t C/ha Limits Sampling uncertainties and depth basis preserved | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF035 Recorded context sourceUNCCD context checked; IPCC source S79 supplies soil-stock method detail. E01/E02 approval pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: CHANGE, SOILCARBON |
| NF037 Paddy irrigation depth requirement | IN = ETcrop + SAT + PERC + WL - Pe Inputs ETo,Kc,pre-saturation,percolation/seepage,water-layer,effective rainfall Unit mm/season Limits Estimate with crop-stage, soil and management data; do not clamp negative without review | Institution publication - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) FAO section 4.4 publishes the paddy irrigation-depth equation. All terms must refer to the same period. Published method: S78 Project definition: retained catalogue NF037 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Published core needs no repeat proof. Confirm local inputs, units and settings under E01; E02/E03 where relevant. See Section 6. Candidate family: WATER |
| NF038 Paddy irrigation volume demand | IN_mm / 1000 × irrigated_area_m2 Inputs Reviewed net irrigation depth; actual area Unit m³ Limits Gross canal demand also needs conveyance/application losses | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF038 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: WATER |
| NF040 Reported canal delivery efficiency | 100 × delivered_volume / released_volume Inputs Measured compatible released and delivered volumes Unit % Limits Meter accuracy, storages and return flows; not national efficiency automatically | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF040 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: YIELD |
| NF041 Water delivery service completeness | 100 × successful scheduled deliveries / applicable scheduled deliveries Inputs Water allocation schedule and execution records Unit % Limits Missed schedule is not proof of illegal allocation | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF041 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF043 Days since last telemetry receipt | Current time - latest received timestamp Inputs Gauge incoming messages; expected interval Unit hours Limits Freshness rule depends on source interval | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF043 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FRESH |
| NF044 Reservoir storage change per period | Stored_volume_end - stored_volume_start with matched capacity curve Inputs Reservoir dated storage estimates Unit m³ Limits Source revisions and spill context matter | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF044 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. |
| NF045 Reservoir operation discharge balance | Observed inflow - recorded outflow (same period) Inputs Inflow, releases, spills, diversions Unit m³/period Limits Not full water balance unless evaporation and all losses included | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF045 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: BALANCE |
| NF046 Recorded demand coverage share | 100 × demand with valid crop/area/period inputs / submitted total demand Inputs Demand source rows and validation states Unit % Limits Measures data readiness, not adequate water supply | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF046 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF049 Water service connection coverage | 100 × active_service_connections / eligible_connections_or_households Inputs Registered connections, denominator source Unit % Limits Connections are not people or households unless one-to-one justified | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF049 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-06. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COVERAGE |
| NF050 Unbilled authorized consumption share | 100 × unbilled_authorized_volume / system_input_volume Inputs System input, unbilled authorized recorded volumes Unit % Limits Separate from real/apparent loss under IWA audit | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF050 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-06. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: NRW |
| NF051 Apparent loss share | 100 × estimated_apparent_loss / system_input_volume Inputs Meter inaccuracies, unauthorized consumption, data errors Unit % Limits Needs audited water balance, not assumed residual | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF051 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-06. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: NRW |
| NF052 Real leakage loss per connection day | Current annual real loss / (number of active connections × days) Inputs Audited real loss, connections, days Unit L/connection/day Limits Unit convert m³ to L; requires validated leakage loss | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF052 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-06. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: NRW |
| NF053 Infrastructure leakage index | Current annual real losses / unavoidable annual real losses Inputs Audited leakage loss; approved unavoidable loss model Unit ratio Limits Only if pressure, connection length and approved method support denominator | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF053 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-06. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: NRW |
| NF055 Groundwater-level drawdown | Reference groundwater head - later groundwater head Inputs Same well measured depth/head tied to datum Unit m Limits Depth to water versus groundwater elevation sign convention required | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF055 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-06. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF056 Groundwater seasonal fluctuation | MAX(groundwater elevation) - MIN(groundwater elevation) Inputs Well observations within matched seasonal window Unit m Limits Need comparable sensor datum and minimum valid observations | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF056 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-06. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: TREND |
| NF057 Regulatory water-quality compliant samples | 100 × valid samples meeting applicable rules / assessed valid samples Inputs Lab results, chemical property, legal target and sample conditions Unit % Limits Not universal water quality index; parameters and intended use matter | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF057 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-06. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: QUALITY |
| NF058 Water-quality monitoring coverage | 100 × locations with required valid testing / designated monitored locations Inputs Monitoring plan and valid laboratory samples Unit % Limits Availability is not water quality | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF058 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-06. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COVERAGE |
| NF059 Forest proportion of assessed land | 100 × forest_area_ha / compatible_land_area_ha Inputs Forest-cover class, land area, boundary edition Unit % Limits Forest and tree-cover definitions must not be mixed | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF059 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-07. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF060 Mean forest tree density | Count of sampled live trees / plot_sampled_area_ha Inputs Forest inventory plots, tree counts, sampled plot area Unit trees/ha Limits Declared diameter inclusion limits and survey design | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF060 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-07. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: CARBON |
| NF061 Forest basal area per hectare | SUM(π × DBH_m² / 4) / sampled_area_ha Inputs Tree DBH for included inventory trees Unit m²/ha Limits DBH units and species inclusion rules; plot expansion | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF061 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-07. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: CARBON |
| NF063 Forest biomass density | SUM(model-estimated biomass) / relevant forest area Inputs Accepted allometric biomass, species, tree size Unit t dry matter/ha Limits Mandatory approved species-specific model and uncertainty | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF063 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-07. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: CARBON |
| NF065 Carbon dioxide equivalent of changed carbon stock | CO2 equivalent = carbon-stock change × 44/12 Inputs Measured/modelled carbon change, defined pools Unit t CO2e Limits Pool accounting, uncertainty, emissions/removals separated | Validation required The linked forest context does not establish this complete conversion rule. IPCC section 2.2.3 distinguishes the 44/12 molecular ratio from the negative sign used for emissions; the sign and reporting purpose require validation. Project definition: retained catalogue NF065 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-07. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: CARBON |
| NF066 Forest edge length per area | Length of forest/nonforest boundaries / forest area Inputs Classified forest polygons and shared edge rule Unit m/ha Limits Sensitive to map resolution and classification noise | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF066 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-07. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF068 Forest cover gross losses by transition | Area of forest-to-nonforest pixels over comparable classification period Inputs Aligned forest classes at start/end Unit ha Limits Not every loss is irreversible deforestation | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF068 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-07. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: CHANGE |
| NF069 Restoration planting density | Number planted / mapped eligible planting area Inputs Planted tree records, planting site area Unit trees/ha Limits Planting density is not survival or verified restoration | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF069 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-07. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF070 Restoration observed survival by cohort | 100 × surviving verified trees / planting cohort count Inputs Seedling cohort, revisit observations Unit % Limits Survival must match cohort and period, not unrelated trees | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF070 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-07. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: SURVIVAL |
| NF071 Forest change alert review completion | 100 × reviewed detection alerts / eligible received alerts Inputs Remote-sensing alerts and review records Unit % Limits Alert is not a confirmed incident | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF071 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-07. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: INSPECT |
| NF072 Observed species richness | COUNT(DISTINCT taxon_id) within comparable verified survey samples Inputs Survey-event species identifications and protocols Unit species Limits Observed richness, not total species richness or population | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF072 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-08. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: BIODIVERSITY |
| NF076 Survey protocol coverage | 100 × surveyed target cells / eligible planned survey cells Inputs Survey sampling grid and completed events Unit % Limits Sampling frame and valid effort required | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF076 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-08. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COVERAGE |
| NF077 Shannon diversity index (survey-based) | H = -SUM(p_i × LN(p_i)) across recorded species sample proportions Inputs Comparable abundance observations by taxon Unit dimensionless Limits Requires abundance sampling, not presence-only opportunistic sightings | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF077 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-08. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: BIODIVERSITY |
| NF079 Threatened taxon observation summary | COUNT(DISTINCT verified_taxa with source-category CR/EN/VU) Inputs Species observations linked to current licensed IUCN categories Unit taxa observed Limits Not a formal threat index and coverage may be incomplete | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF079 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-08. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: BIODIVERSITY |
| NF080 Conservation habitat survey response time | Observed incident report time to documented first follow-up Inputs Human-wildlife incident and response cases Unit hours/days Limits Requires accurate timestamps; does not measure mitigation success | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF080 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-08. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF081 Protected habitat intersection share | Area(habitat ∩ protected_boundary) / area(habitat) × 100 Inputs Habitat spatial polygons, protected-area boundary editions Unit % Limits Geometries, data rights, sensitive locations | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF081 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-08. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: OVERLAY |
| NF082 Biodiversity threat exposure STAR | Apply licensed IUCN STAR tool methodology to input threatened taxon habitat and threat data Inputs IUCN distribution, species risk/threat layers, land use Unit STAR units per IUCN method Limits Not generic Shannon index; official model and expert approval required | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF082 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-08. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: STAR |
| NF083 Habitat condition change | End validated condition indicator - baseline condition indicator Inputs Comparable indicator values, scale and surveys Unit indicator units Limits Method approved, condition not a one-size-fits-all score | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF083 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-08. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: CHANGE |
| NF085 Rainfall anomaly difference | Observed_period_rainfall - matching_climate_normal Inputs Observed accumulated rain, baseline normal Unit mm Limits Baseline normals and missing data completeness stated | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF085 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-09. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: ANOMALY |
| NF086 Rainfall coefficient of variation | 100 × sample_sd(annual_total_rainfall) / mean(annual_total_rainfall) Inputs Complete annual rainfall totals over stated years Unit % Limits Mean positive; sufficiently many complete years | Government publication - United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) NIST defines sample CV. This reference expresses the ratio as a percentage; rainfall data and aggregation require approval. Published method: S84 Project definition: retained catalogue NF086 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-09. This link check does not approve the method. Published core needs no repeat proof. Confirm local inputs, units and settings under E01; E02/E03 where relevant. See Section 6. Candidate family: ANOMALY |
| NF088 Maximum consecutive dry days | MAX(run length of daily precipitation below approved dry-day cutoff) Inputs Complete daily precipitation series Unit days Limits Gap breaks run unless imputed under reviewed method | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF088 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-09. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: SPELL |
| NF089 Maximum consecutive wet days | MAX(run length of days meeting approved rain cutoff) Inputs Daily station rainfall and wet-day definition Unit days Limits Document threshold and observation completeness | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF089 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-09. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: SPELL |
| NF093 Meteorological observation timeliness | 100 × valid observations received by expected deadline / expected observations Inputs Station schedule and received timestamps Unit % Limits Does not prove measurement accuracy | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF093 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-09. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FRESH |
| NF094 Station/source period coverage | 100 × periods with quality-accepted data / expected periods Inputs Expected schedule and valid observation inventory Unit % Limits Coverage should accompany plotted anomalies | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF094 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-09. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FRESH |
| NF095 SPI using fitted probability distribution | Follow WMO recommended precipitation aggregation, fitted distribution and standard normal transform Inputs Long rainfall time series, selected SPI timescale Unit SPI z-score Limits Not simple anomaly / SD; minimum time-series and QA requirements | Institution publication - World Meteorological Organization (WMO) WMO section 6 describes fitting and normal transformation. This retained method is not implemented by the SPI input-only screen. Published method: S82 Project definition: retained catalogue NF095 Recorded context sourceNormals page checked; use WMO SPI guide S82 for the specialist method. E01 approval pending. Published core needs no repeat proof. Confirm local inputs, units and settings under E01; E02/E03 where relevant. See Section 6. Candidate family: SPI |
| NF097 Disaster affected family share | 100 × affected_households / total_households_at_same_area Inputs Official affected families; relevant household denominator Unit % Limits Count families only once within incident; not total people | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF097 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-10. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF099 Disaster direct loss to GDP | 100 × verified_direct_economic_loss / relevant_GDP Inputs PDNA damages and matched GDP Unit % Limits Separate damage vs output loss, price year and coverage | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF099 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-10. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF100 Sectoral damage composition | 100 × approved_sector_damage / all_included_sector_damage Inputs PDNA amounts by category/currency Unit % Limits Avoid overlap between public/private and sectors | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF100 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-10. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COMPOSITION |
| NF101 Disaster recovery funding gap | Estimated approved recovery need - committed eligible financing Inputs PDNA recovery plan needs, confirmed commitments Unit LKR Limits Needs not identical to monetary damage; avoid double counting | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF101 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-10. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FUNDING |
| NF102 Safe-center occupancy | Present displaced persons / documented safe-center capacity × 100 Inputs Shelter occupants, certified facility capacity Unit % Limits Capacity requires approved site records; exceeding 100 possible as overload | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF102 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-10. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: CAPACITY |
| NF104 Hazard overlap of candidate sites | Area(candidate_site ∩ valid_hazard_class) by class Inputs Published NBRO/DMC zonation; project polygons Unit ha Limits Spatial intersection not an operational permit/recommendation | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF104 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-10. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: OVERLAY |
| NF105 Disaster observation update lag | Latest verified situation time - actual field observation time Inputs Field report source time and publication timestamp Unit hours Limits Lag can be source reporting not current incident | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF105 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-10. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FRESH |
| NF106 Landslide model suitability/readiness | Documented zonation geometry and edition; no replacement formula Inputs NBRO hazard layer, scale, valid plan use Unit category/coverage Limits NBRO hazard model cannot be approximated by invented slope score | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF106 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-10. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: RISK |
| NF107 Ambient parameter compliance share | 100 × accepted test observations meeting applicable target / all accepted tests assessed Inputs Sample value, unit, purpose-specific target and period Unit % Limits National threshold and test methods must be verified | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF107 Recorded context sourceParameter compliance is not the full water-body indicator SDG 6.3.2. Confirm the intended measure under E01. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: QUALITY |
| NF108 Monitoring sites with complete parameter groups | 100 × sites with all required current parameters / required monitored sites Inputs Network sites; valid oxygen/salinity/nutrients/acidity groups Unit % Limits Completion does not imply meeting quality criteria | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF108 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-11. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COVERAGE |
| NF109 Median pollutant concentration | MEDIAN(valid lab results at compatible points/periods) Inputs Quality-tested environmental concentrations Unit mg/L Limits Lab detection limits/censored values need method | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF109 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-11. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: QUALITY |
| NF110 Environment mitigation completion | 100 × independently closed mitigation actions / actions due Inputs Assessment conditions, actions, review records Unit % Limits Action closure not equal pollutant reduction | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF110 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-11. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: INSPECT |
| NF111 Environmental monitoring spatial coverage | 100 × designated zones with sampled sites / planned zones Inputs Sites and monitoring plan polygons Unit % Limits Sparse points do not establish whole-zone water quality | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF111 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-11. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COVERAGE |
| NF112 Environmental exceedance duration | SUM(duration of verified exceedance episodes under approved threshold rule) Inputs Time-series, quality control, threshold + hysteresis Unit hours Limits Sampling frequency and gaps require supported interpolation | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF112 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-11. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: QUALITY |
| NF113 Price range width | Market quoted maximum - market quoted minimum Inputs Same date/place/grade min/max price Unit LKR/kg Limits Quotation range not mean/actual sale | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF113 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: DISTRIBUTION |
| NF114 Commodity price median by market | MEDIAN(quality-valid matching price quotations) Inputs Dated comparable unit/grade price quotes Unit LKR/kg Limits Quotations not independently recorded transactions | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF114 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: DISTRIBUTION, PRICE |
| NF115 Commodity weekly price volatility | 100 × sample_std(weekly_price_series) / mean(weekly_price_series) Inputs Matched weekly quoted prices across defined window Unit % Limits Needs >=2 valid periods and positive mean; not return volatility | Government publication - United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) NIST defines sample CV. This reference expresses the ratio as a percentage; the selected weekly price series requires validation. HARTI is a price-data source, not the source of this statistic. Published method: S84 Project definition: retained catalogue NF115 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Published core needs no repeat proof. Confirm local inputs, units and settings under E01; E02/E03 where relevant. See Section 6. Candidate family: VOLATILITY |
| NF116 Farm-gate to retail spread | Retail_quoted_price - farmgate_quoted_price at compatible grades/periods Inputs Farmgate and retail prices with matching product/grade Unit LKR/kg Limits Transport, margins and losses not implied by spread alone | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF116 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: PRICE |
| NF117 Postharvest batch retention | 100 × usable_output_kg / raw_input_kg Inputs Input mass, usable output, documented process Unit % Limits Moisture/processing losses may be intended; define basis | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF117 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: LOSS |
| NF118 Processor capacity utilization | 100 × actual_processed_quantity / theoretical_available_capacity Inputs Equipment capacity, operating period, output records Unit % Limits Theoretical capacity conditioned on uptime and shifts | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF118 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: CAPACITY |
| NF119 Transport cost per tonne-kilometre | Transport_total_cost / (shipment_tonnes × route_km) Inputs Shipment quantity, verified route and cost Unit LKR/t-km Limits Need valid route distance and mode; no straight line substitution | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF119 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COST |
| NF120 Cold-chain temperature excursions | COUNT(valid interval episodes exceeding product-approved range) Inputs Logger temperature, goods specification, logger quality Unit events Limits Sampling interval, trigger hysteresis and allowed limit | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF120 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: QUALITY |
| NF121 Verified sell-through rate | 100 × actual_sold_quantity / available_marketable_quantity Inputs Confirmed sales and inventory/production availability Unit % Limits Buyer interest, enquiries not sales | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF121 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF122 Export unit value | Customs-reported export value / matched export quantity Inputs Customs value, volume, currency, product, country Unit USD/tonne Limits Changes in quality/product mix distort interpretation | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF122 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: YIELD |
| NF123 Export market concentration HHI | SUM((market_export_share)^2) for complete destination breakdown Inputs Product export value by destination, same year Unit HHI share squared Limits Subscription source coverage and missing markets matter | Validation required The HARTI price bulletin does not establish an export-concentration method. Government HHI guidance uses a different market and scale; this application requires validation. Project definition: retained catalogue NF123 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: CONCENTRATION |
| NF124 Export destination share | 100 × value_to_destination / total_product_exports Inputs Export data with same product code and year Unit % Limits Official trade data may require subscription | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF124 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COMPOSITION |
| NF125 Export growth contribution | (current_value - prior_value) / (current_total_export_value - prior_total) × 100 Inputs Product-group export values in consistent currency Unit % Limits When total delta zero, no contribution percentage; can be negative | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF125 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF126 Price seasonality index | 100 × mean(price for calendar month over complete years) / grand_mean_price Inputs Consistent historic commodity monthly quotes Unit index, base 100 Limits Missing periods/market mix and inflation context | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF126 Recorded context sourceOfficial alternative checked. Read NF-SOURCE-12 for its scope; method and local application approval remain pending. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: VOLATILITY |
| NF127 Registered state-land permit backlog | COUNT(valid permit applications with open state beyond agreed review date) Inputs Application reference, submitted date, workflow state Unit applications Limits Overdue definition depends on official workflow, not invented SLA | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF127 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: QUEUE |
| NF128 Permit expiry exposure | COUNT(active recorded permits with end date within selected horizon) Inputs Permit register, documented expiry date Unit permits Limits A warning is not a legal determination of permit validity | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF128 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF129 State land record coverage | 100 × indexed parcels with valid reference / eligible source parcel list Inputs State land parcel records, digitization inventory Unit % Limits Not legal ownership completeness | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF129 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COVERAGE |
| NF130 Enterprise programme uptake | 100 × verified participating enterprises / invited eligible enterprises Inputs Programme participant and eligibility records Unit % Limits Enrollment alone does not prove success | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF130 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FLOW |
| NF131 Training to support transition | 100 × trainees completing defined follow-up / enrolled trainees Inputs Training and follow-up support records Unit % Limits Participant identity and training session distinction | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF131 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FLOW |
| NF132 Industrial estate occupied plot share | 100 × leased/occupied developed plots / plots available at start Inputs Industrial estate inventory, dated lease and status Unit % Limits Allocation/lease not proof of operational industry | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF132 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: CAPACITY |
| NF133 Enterprise support response time | Mean(closure_date - request_date) for valid completed service records Inputs Service requests and completion dates Unit days Limits Cases still open are separately reported, not discarded | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF133 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: QUEUE |
| NF134 Industrial facility infrastructure readiness | Count compliant required infrastructure elements / total required elements (approved checklist) Inputs Site infrastructure assessments and checklist Unit % Limits Locally approved readiness checklist; not automatic investment approval | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF134 Recorded context sourceOriginal linked source retained as context; exact formula and local suitability not certified Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: INSPECT |
| NF135 Population poverty headcount share | 100 × weighted_persons_below_official_poverty_line / valid_survey_population Inputs HIES consumption/income, line, sample weights Unit % Limits Official sample design; avoid GN-level inference from district estimate | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF135 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-13. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: DISTRIBUTION |
| NF136 Mean household expenditure per person | Survey-weighted household expenditure per capita Inputs HIES household expenditure, size and sample weights Unit LKR/person/month Limits Use official deflation/reference prices for comparisons | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF136 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-13. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: DISTRIBUTION |
| NF138 Community outreach coverage | 100 × distinct verified reached target persons / eligible target population Inputs Outreach event attendance and authorized frame Unit % Limits Cannot use census persons as count of project beneficiaries | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF138 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-13. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COVERAGE |
| NF139 Service request first response time | Time of first actual official response - submission received time Inputs Case records and timestamps Unit hours/days Limits Acknowledgement may be different from substantive response | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF139 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-13. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: QUEUE |
| NF140 Resolved feedback ratio | 100 × independently closed feedback cases / valid cases received in same cohort Inputs Feedback case registers, dispositions, cohorts Unit % Limits Public anonymous intake requires approved policy | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF140 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-13. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF141 Training completion share | 100 × unique completers / unique eligible enrolled participants Inputs Training session and participant records Unit % Limits Completion definition and duplicate IDs reviewed | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF141 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-13. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FLOW |
| NF142 Programme support intensity | Total verified delivered support quantity / distinct verified recipients Inputs Support episodes, quantities and participant IDs Unit unit/person Limits Do not merge heterogeneous support units | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF142 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-13. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: No equivalence asserted |
| NF143 Repeated-support overlap share | 100 × distinct recipients in >1 support programme / distinct recipients across programmes Inputs Reviewed privacy-permitted beneficiary cross-programme links Unit % Limits Restricted identifiers; overlap is not ineligible or fraud | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF143 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-13. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: REPEAT |
| NF144 Community grievance ageing | Age as-of date of unresolved complaint or case Inputs Protected grievance/feedback case and status Unit days Limits Only activate formal grievance workflow if approved | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF144 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-13. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: QUEUE |
| NF145 Project internal rate of return | Solve NPV(r) = 0 for well-defined dated net cashflow sequence Inputs Initial investment, annual costs/benefits, residual value Unit %/period Limits Multiple/no roots possible, monetary vs economic basis separate | Validation required The linked appraisal illustrates periodic IRR. The reference specifies dated cash flows; timing conventions and the applicable solver require validation. Project definition: retained catalogue NF145 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-14. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FINANCE |
| NF147 Discounted payback year | First period where cumulative discounted net cash flow becomes non-negative Inputs Approved cashflow schedule, discount rate Unit years Limits No payback if never recovers; fractional interpolation declared | Validation required The reference requires discounted payback. The linked appraisal and prototype helper use simple or undiscounted payback; they do not validate this method. Project definition: retained catalogue NF147 Recorded context sourceOriginal source describes simple payback, not discounted payback. Select and approve a separate discounted method under E01. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FINANCE |
| NF148 Debt service coverage ratio | Cash available for debt service / scheduled principal+interest due Inputs Cashflows, debt repayment schedule Unit ratio Limits Requires finance-institution definition; not automatic loan approval | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF148 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-14. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: DEBT |
| NF149 Co-financing commitment ratio | 100 × documented eligible co-finance commitments / approved co-finance target Inputs Signed funding commitments and target Unit % Limits Commitment is not disbursement | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF149 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-14. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FUNDING |
| NF151 Unfunded intervention amount | Approved planned intervention amount - confirmed eligible committed finance Inputs Reviewed intervention budget, grant commitments Unit LKR Limits Do not count planned or interested finance as commitment | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF151 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-14. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FUNDING |
| NF152 PES verification completion | 100 × agreements with verified required services / agreements due for verification Inputs PES agreements, evidence and verifier records Unit % Limits Compliance depends on scheme rules and independence | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF152 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-14. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: PES |
| NF153 PES quantified physical service flow | SUM(accepted service_units) for comparable service/method and period Inputs Approved ecosystem service physical flow observations Unit service-specific units Limits Different service types cannot be summed in one total | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF153 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-14. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: PES |
| NF154 Ecosystem service monetary flow | SUM(verified quantities × reviewed service-unit valuation) with permitted approach Inputs Service flows, approved accounting/valuation model Unit LKR/year Limits Monetary account is not a cash payment or PES entitlement | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF154 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-14. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: ACCOUNT |
| NF155 Outcome verification cost per unit | Total project monitoring/verification cost / accepted verified service units Inputs Eligible monitoring expenditure and verified service flow Unit LKR/service unit Limits Service category and period must agree | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF155 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-14. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. |
| NF156 PES agreement renewal exposure | COUNT(effective agreements ending during selected horizon) Inputs PES agreement valid-to date and status Unit agreements Limits Status may require official legal source confirmation | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF156 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-14. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: PES |
| NF157 Benefit-cost sensitivity range | Recompute BCR/NPV on separate documented discount/cost/benefit assumptions Inputs Approved appraisal, alternative parameter sets Unit LKR; ratio Limits Not an automatic preference ranking; retain scenario lineage | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF157 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-14. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FINANCE |
| NF158 Milestone evidence acceptance share | 100 × verified-complete milestones / due milestones Inputs Milestone due dates, reviewed evidence and states Unit % Limits Submitted evidence is not completion | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF158 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-15. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FLOW |
| NF159 Intervention implementation rate | 100 × interventions reaching accepted implementation stage / approved planned interventions Inputs Portfolio intervention states and planned cohort Unit % Limits Stages reflect plan, field work, review separately | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF159 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-15. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: VARIANCE |
| NF160 Financial utilization against approved budget | 100 × posted eligible actual expenditure / latest approved budget Inputs Budget editions, eligible posted expenses Unit % Limits Commitments and disbursements distinguished | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF160 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-15. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. |
| NF164 Review backlog aged beyond target | COUNT(open review cases exceeding their assigned due date) Inputs Review queue, due dates and current statuses Unit cases Limits No universal SLA unless approved | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF164 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-15. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: QUEUE |
| NF165 Outcome indicator data coverage | 100 × required reporting units with valid observed results / applicable reporting units Inputs Indicator plan, report periods, valid observations Unit % Limits Targets do not count as observations | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF165 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-15. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COVERAGE |
| NF166 Source evidence acceptance ratio | 100 × accepted submissions / received submissions of cohort Inputs Submission versions and review states Unit % Limits Returned duplicates version counted by submitted unit | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF166 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-15. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FLOW |
| NF169 Portfolio intervention area coverage | Unique unioned mapped intervention hectares / defined eligible project landscape hectares × 100 Inputs Geometries linked to approved interventions, landscape Unit % Limits Spatial union avoids overlap double counting; area is not beneficiary count | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF169 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-15. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: COVERAGE |
| NF170 Review independence compliance | 100 × protected decisions with distinct authorized reviewer / protected decisions requiring independence Inputs Decision/audit actors and review policy Unit % Limits Privacy and role-scope rules; not a substitute for approvals | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF170 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-15. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: INSPECT |
| NF171 Target achievement ratio | 100 × compatible observed_result / applicable target Inputs Approved indicator target and verified actuals Unit % Limits If target zero or direction inverted, specify alternate method | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF171 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-15. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: VARIANCE |
| NF173 Schema validation pass rate | 100 × records passing all required schema checks / received records Inputs Submission validation receipts, schema versions Unit % Limits Technical validity not scientific accuracy | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF173 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-16. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: METADATA |
| NF174 Data timeliness share | 100 × expected reporting periods received within source-specific deadline / due periods Inputs Source update agreement and timestamps Unit % Limits No universal freshness target; out-of-order intake allowed | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF174 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-16. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: FRESH |
| NF176 Record provenance completeness | 100 × observations with mandatory source/version/field/location-time support / eligible observations Inputs Lineage audit contract, record metadata Unit % Limits Location may be explicitly unknown per contract | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF176 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-16. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: METADATA |
| NF177 Geospatial object matching review rate | 100 × reviewed candidate identity matches / generated eligible candidates Inputs Match suggestions and reviewer decisions Unit % Limits Similarity does not establish canonical identity | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF177 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-16. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: MISMATCH |
| NF178 GIS layer actual data availability | 100 × published catalogue entries with valid retrievable layers / eligible required layers Inputs Catalogue service status, layer count Unit % Limits WMS service available does not guarantee bulk features | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF178 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-16. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: METADATA |
| NF179 Expired data source access share | 100 × active saved analytic products with invalid source rights / products due for recheck Inputs Source grants, saved reports, current permissions Unit % Limits A private report should remain inaccessible, not leak metadata | Validation required The linked publication supplies context, observations or related guidance; direct support for this exact formula or procedure is not established. Project definition: retained catalogue NF179 Recorded context sourceRead the source note for NF-SOURCE-16. This link check does not approve the method. Local definitions and method changes: E01; E02/E03 where relevant. Developer checks arithmetic and input handling. See Section 6. Candidate family: ACCESS |
All sources
The 133 source entries retain their original citations and access limits. Government publication and Institution publication identify support for a stated core method. Project adaptations and incomplete support remain Validation required. Availability is not permission, scientific endorsement or acceptance.
The preferred LUPPD planning report and HARTI publication alternatives remain linked with their limits. The original local planning manual was not recovered. Access-unverified sources need an official copy or approved retry under the existing C04/E01 decisions.
Download the complete source register
S01 LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context
Official departmental report hosted by Parliament; planning context
Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination
Official alternative checked
This official LUPPD report is a readable alternative for institutional planning context. It is not the missing divisional planning manual. The original manual was not recovered; confirm the applicable local procedure and source edition with LUPPD under C04/E02.
Open sourceS02 NRMC functions
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS03 Department of Agriculture publications and regulations
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS04 Agrarian Development services
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS05 Irrigation Department public information
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Public homepage navigation: reservoir status, hydrology, geo-informatics and branch information
Content checked
The official page is available. It identifies public information routes; it does not establish a data licence, live API or calculation method.
Open sourceS06 Irrigation Department overview and functions
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Overview: Objectives and Functions
Replacement checked
The old ministry URL has a certificate hostname problem. The department's own overview confirms water-resource planning, operation, maintenance and flood-protection functions. This replacement is institutional context.
Open sourceS07 Mahaweli Water Management Secretariat
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS08 Mahaweli land-use planning
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS09 Forest Conservation functions
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS10 Department of Meteorology products
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS11 Agro-climatology and climate change division
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS12 Export Agriculture research division
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS13 GCF FP124 project and documents
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS14 CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS15 Survey Department responsibilities
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS16 Sri Lanka NSDI reference standards
Context requiring custodian confirmation
Reference standards page contains text about another jurisdiction; no local mandate inferred
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS17 Sri Lanka NSDI publication and access FAQ
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS18 Disaster Management Centre profile
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS19 Landslide clearance assessment
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment
Content checked
The official text describes geological, geotechnical and hydrological site assessment. It is clearance context, not a numerical hazard score. Current applicability and authority remain for the competent institution to confirm.
Open sourceS20 Environmental Protection License scheme
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS21 Natural resources management and monitoring
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS22 Wildlife research permissions
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS23 Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary
Replacement checked
The DWC URL returns 404. The same titled plan is available from the collaborating GIZ SNRD archive. It is historical Wilpattu context, not a current Knuckles management plan.
Open sourceS24 Census and Statistics survey catalogue
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS25 Water Resources Board hydrogeology
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS26 Water Resources Board services
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS27 Water supply and sanitation project completion report
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
World Bank ICR00005929: contents, results framework and efficiency analysis
Content checked
The Water Supply and Sanitation Improvement Project report is available. It supports project and service-performance context. Its project-specific values are not SHARED parameters.
Open sourceS28 Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Licensing: licence categories and application information
Replacement checked
The old /services path returns 404. The official licensing page is available. It supplies regulatory context; permit decisions and current conditions require the Bureau's confirmation.
Open sourceS29 State land administration services
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS30 State Land Information Management System
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS31 HARTI weekly commodity bulletins
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS32 HARTI annual report 2024
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS33 EDB export marketing services
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS34 EDB trade information
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS35 National Enterprise Development Authority
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS36 IDB technical services
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS37 IDB industrial estates
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS38 Home Affairs historical performance report: administration context
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Historical report: PDF pages 5-6; district, divisional and Grama Niladhari administration sections listed in contents
Content checked
The report is available through verified HTTPS. It concerns historical administration and progress. Do not use its counts or arrangements as the current programme geography or current mandate.
Open sourceS39 Public Administration Circular 23/2021
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS40 Tea Research Institute agronomy
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Agronomy division: research and development activities and key research areas
Content checked
The official page supports tea agronomy, productivity, labour and soil and water context. It does not prescribe the prototype's numerical rules.
Open sourceS41 TRI climate adaptation guideline 2019
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
TRI Guideline 01/2019, pages 1-2: impacts and adaptation strategies
Content checked
The two-page guideline is available. It gives tea climate-adaptation practices. Local option selection, effectiveness and measurement protocols still need expert approval.
Open sourceS42 Plantation Human Development Trust
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS43 CBSL sustainable finance
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS44 Sri Lanka Green Finance Taxonomy
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS45 GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort
Replacement checked
The original introduction was access-blocked. The official guide is readable and provides stronger sampling-event documentation. It does not establish a Shannon or STAR calculation.
Open sourceS46 GBIF biological survey publishing guide
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS47 IFRC community engagement and accountability
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms
Content checked
The official page supports participation and feedback principles. SHARED response deadlines, escalation and safeguarding rules remain client decisions.
Open sourceS48 USDA RUSLE2 overview
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database
Content checked
The page describes a rainfall and runoff erosion model. A simple product of factors is not the full RUSLE2 program. Local factors and valid uses need expert approval.
Open sourceS49 IPCC 2019 Refinement
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS50 FAO crop evapotranspiration 56
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS51 Cost of production budgeting
Context requiring follow up
Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS52 WMO SPI user guide record
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS53 UDA published zoning map
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS54 Seed Certification Service
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS55 Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS56 WHO water safety planning
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS57 FAO food loss measurement
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS58 UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS59 OECD evaluation criteria
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis
Content checked
The OECD chapter is available and supplies evaluation criteria. It does not prescribe one SHARED score, weighting scheme or causal estimator.
Open sourceS60 FAO PES and food security
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS61 FAO designing PES
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS62 NRMC Soil Conservation Division
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS63 NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS64 Irrigation Department Dam Safety Branch
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Dam Safety: Main Functions and Services
Content checked
The branch page confirms inspection, monitoring and coordination responsibilities. It does not supply a universal dam-safety risk score or operating threshold.
Open sourceS65 Irrigation Department Water Management Branch
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Water Management: Objectives and Functions
Content checked
The branch page confirms coordination and irrigation water-management functions. Crop-water calculations use the separate FAO method sources and approved local inputs.
Open sourceS66 NSDI profile of Land Use Policy Planning Department
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS67 DCS Statistical Abstract 2024: agriculture methodology
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS68 FAO 56: Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS69 FAO 56: crop evapotranspiration
Published method
FAO 56 Chapter 5 equation 56; ETc = Kc × ETo
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS70 IPCC 2019 Refinement: AFOLU volume
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS71 IUCN Species Threat Abatement and Restoration metric
Published specialist method overview
Scientific underpinning and approach; full STAR calculation is not implemented
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS72 IWA non-revenue water management
Published definition
Opening NRW definition; detailed water audit protocol not supplied
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS73 CBSL Sri Lanka Green Finance Taxonomy 2022
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS74 World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135
Content checked
The chapter describes difference-in-differences and its comparison-trend assumptions. It does not validate a local causal claim from a simple before-and-after change.
Open sourceS75 Environment Canada: root mean squared error
Published method
What is Root Mean Square Error; displayed formula
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS76 FAO enterprise and activity budgeting
Published method
Section 4.3.8 Gross margin; section 4.7 Parametric budgeting
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceS77 DCS paddy statistics and revision notice
Context or data source; not automatic formula support
Full method locator not established
Retrieved text for review
Open sourceLOCAL-SRS01 SRS Chapter 01: Introduction
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS02 SRS Chapter 02: Understanding SHARED and How It Works
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS03 SRS Chapter 03: Stakeholders and Responsibilities
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS04 SRS Chapter 04: Overall System Architecture
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS05 SRS Chapter 05: How SHARED Organizes Information
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS06 SRS Chapter 06: Collecting and Importing Data
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS07 SRS Chapter 07: Checking and Approving Data
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS08 SRS Chapter 08: Data Storage and Record History
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS09 SRS Chapter 09: Finding Information and Preparing Reports
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS10 SRS Chapter 10: Maps and Geographic Analysis
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS11 SRS Chapter 11: Dashboards and Information Visualization
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS12 SRS Chapter 12: Decision Support
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS13 SRS Chapter 13: Project Implementation and PMU Monitoring
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS14 SRS Chapter 14: Beneficiary and Community Services
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS15 SRS Chapter 15: Markets Value Chains and Ecosystem Services
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS16 SRS Chapter 16: User Interfaces and Mobile Applications
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS17 SRS Chapter 17: APIs and External System Connections
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS18 SRS Chapter 18: Non Functional Requirements
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS19 SRS Chapter 19: System Testing and Acceptance
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS20 SRS Chapter 20: Development Deployment and Handover
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-SRS21 SRS Chapter 21: Pending Requirements and Institutional Decisions
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Existing local SRS extract
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-CATALOGUE Existing 41-profile, 164-question catalogue
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Local catalogue inspected
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
LOCAL-INTAKE Existing prototype data-entry and upload schemas
Project proposal and context
Original project chapter or catalogue named in the title
Local catalogue inspected
Local project context record; no public URL is expected.
PROTO SHARED prototype calculation and workflow implementation
Project implementation
DecisionSupportModel.spec/project and named model functions in each entry
Read only prototype inspection
Open sourceSRS SHARED Software Requirements Specification
Project requirement
Sections 5.4, 10, 12 and named requirement IDs in each rule
Version 1.6 author revision; institutional acceptance pending
Open sourceS78 FAO Irrigation Water Management Training Manual 3
Published method
Chapter 4.4 Irrigation water need of rice; steps 1 to 8
Method text checked
Open sourceS79 IPCC 2006 Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 2
Published method
Sections 2.2.3, 2.3.1 and 2.3.3; soil stock guidance printed page 2.37
Method text checked
Open sourceS80 USDA Forest Service A guide for predicting sheet and rill erosion on forest land
Historical published method
Universal Soil Loss Equation and Applying the USLE; printed page 2
Historical method text checked; current local calibration not established
Open sourceS81 FAO Guidelines for financial economic environmental and social information
Published method
Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return subsections
Method text checked
Open sourceS82 WMO Standardized Precipitation Index User Guide
Published method
WMO No 1090; SPI calculation and interpretation guidance
Full guide checked; local fit and baseline pending
Open sourceS83 US Department of Justice Herfindahl Hirschman Index
Published definition
Definition of the sum of squared market shares
Definition checked; US legal thresholds do not apply to this project
Open sourceS84 NIST Coefficient of Variation
Published definition
Description of sample CV and ratio scale restriction
Definition checked
Open sourceS86 Turf distance API
Software method
Version 7.2.0 distance; Haversine method
Documentation checked
Open sourceS87 Turf length API
Software method
Version 7.2.0 length; selected units
Documentation checked
Open sourceS88 Turf buffer API
Software method
Version 7.2.0 buffer; radius and steps
Documentation checked
Open sourceS89 Turf intersect API
Software method
Version 7.2.0 intersect; polygon intersection
Documentation checked
Open sourceS90 Turf point in polygon API
Software method
Version 7.2.0 booleanPointInPolygon; boundary option
Documentation checked
Open sourceS91 UN Handbook of Surveys on Households and Individuals
Published guidance
Chapter 9 section 9.4.2, equation 9-16, printed page 9-19 (PDF page 427); Chapter 8 weighting; Final Draft
Weighting guidance checked; draft status retained
Open sourceS92 World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition
Published method
Chapter 7 Difference in Differences
Method text checked
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-01 Original context source linked by NF001
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
Statistical Abstract 2025, Chapter 5: agriculture tables and methodology links
Content checked
This is a source catalogue for agricultural observations and definitions. The linked shares, intensity and forecast-error rules remain project method definitions until their exact input and estimator choices are approved.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-02 Original context source linked by NF014
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
SEPC Downloads: Cost of Cultivation and Crop Enterprise Budget
Content checked
The page supplies relevant budget and cultivation publications. It does not by itself verify every linked cost, delay or post-harvest-loss formula. The selected publication and cost scope still require confirmation.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-03 Original context source linked by NF023
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
FAO RUSLE toolbox: equation A = R K L S C P and factor definitions
Content checked
The page explicitly supports the RUSLE factor equation for sheet and rill erosion. Scenario subtraction and class-area summaries are separate project operations. Units, factors and local calibration remain pending E01/E02.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-04 FAO Guidelines for land-use planning: official general guidance
Official FAO planning guidance; proposed alternative for expert review
FAO Development Series 1, 1993; Chapter 3, planning steps, especially Steps 1, 5 and 6; Chapter 4, methods and sources
Official alternative checked
The FAO guide supplies general planning guidance. It is not a confirmed replacement for the Sri Lankan divisional manual. Local limits, source maps, planning rules and the linked area/change calculations remain subject to C04/E01/E02 approval. The LUPPD report provides separate institutional context.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-05 Original context source linked by NF034
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
UNCCD Good Practice Guidance Version 2 landing page: land cover, productivity and soil organic carbon
Content checked
The guidance landing page is available. Use the already cited IPCC source S79 for the soil-stock equation; sampling, units and local application remain expert decisions.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-06 Original context source linked by NF049
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
FAO indicator 6.4.2: freshwater withdrawal relative to renewable resources after environmental water requirements
Content checked
This source is about water stress. It does not support the linked connection-coverage, utility-loss, leakage-index, groundwater or regulatory-compliance formulas. Those remain separate project proposals needing method-specific evidence.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-07 Original context source linked by NF059
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
FAO Forest Resources Assessment document: Land Classifications, Forest Parameters and Changes
Content checked
This is historical terminology and assessment context. It does not verify every linked basal-area, biomass, carbon, survival or alert-review procedure. Current definitions and the appropriate method sources remain required.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-08 Original context source linked by NF072
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
GBIF Data quality recommendations: occurrence and sampling-event requirements; sensitive-species handling
Content checked
This source supports record quality and publication requirements. It is not the calculation source for Shannon diversity, STAR, habitat change or response-time metrics.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-09 Original context source linked by NF085
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
WMO Climatological Normals: definitions of averages, normals and standard normals
Replacement checked
The original link redirects to this official page. It defines reference periods. SPI uses the separate guide S82; dry-spell thresholds, missing-data policy and local baseline approval remain separate.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-10 Original context source linked by NF097
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
Sendai Framework Monitor methodology: Targets and Indicators, including target C direct economic loss relative to GDP
Content checked
The page supports official disaster-indicator definitions. SHARED family coverage, funding gaps, occupancy, response lags and site-overlay rules are separate project measures with their own scope and denominators.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-11 UNEP SDG 6.3.2 ambient water-quality metadata
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
UNSD metadata PDF, sections 2.a and 4.c; classification and indicator computation
Replacement checked
The original UN-Water page is access-limited. The custodian metadata is readable. It aggregates assessed water bodies after classification. A parameter-test compliance percentage such as NF107 is not the complete SDG 6.3.2 indicator.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-12 HARTI Daily Food Commodities Bulletin: checked price publication
Official HARTI price observations; not a universal calculation-method source
Selected bulletin 2026.10.30, PDF page 1: wholesale ranges, published averages and changes by market; explicit Rs/kg and Rs/egg groups
Official alternative checked
The official PDF contains price tables. Read each column date, market and unit; a dash means missing, not zero. This is a selected publication, not a live feed or proof of reuse permission. Medians, volatility, farm-gate spreads and logistics/export measures need additional accepted data and methods under C04/E01.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-13 Original context source linked by NF135
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
DCS Household Income and Expenditure Survey publication and report links
Content checked
The page identifies household-survey sources. Use the selected report's poverty line, survey weights and population definition. Outreach, grievance and training measures are project rules, not HIES estimators.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-14 World Bank Burkina Faso rural development project appraisal, Report 73486-BF
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
PDF page 107, printed page 97: Formulas for computing economic and financial ratios
Content checked
The historical appraisal gives periodic IRR, NPV, simple payback and sensitivity examples. Its payback formula is not discounted payback. It does not establish SHARED debt-service rules, PES valuations or local financing assumptions.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-15 Original context source linked by NF158
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
FP124 Annual Performance Report 2025, Version 1.0: landing page and linked main PDF
Content checked
The report and its PDF are readable. The publisher says the report is under review and may change. It supplies project reporting context, not an approved definition for every linked SHARED workflow ratio.
Open sourceNF-SOURCE-16 Original context source linked by NF173
Source content checked; linked methods need separate review
UNSD SDG metadata repository: introduction and indicator-specific metadata
Content checked
The repository is available and explains metadata governance. It does not prescribe the linked SHARED schema-pass, timeliness, provenance, matching or expired-rights ratios. Those are project control measures requiring client acceptance.
Open sourceDomain method sources
The complete source CSV includes the 133 retained entries and these additional domain source notes.
DD-WATER FAO56 root-zone water balance
Institution publication. Chapter8 equation85 and ETc = Kc ETo. Daily water balance components; local coefficients and operating assumptions still need review.
Open sourceDD-PESTICIDES Sri Lanka Registrar of Pesticides
Government publication. Current registration lists, restrictions and label guidance. Registration and label evidence; no treatment recommendation or automatic permission.
Open sourceDD-CEA CEA ambient water regulations
Government publication. Gazette2148/20, Schedule of use-specific categories. Published ambient water categories and limits; do not substitute them for drinking-water, effluent, air or noise rules.
Open sourceDD-BRIER JMA numerical weather prediction outline
Government publication. AppendixA.3, equationsA.3.1 and A.3.3. Brier score and reference skill for binary probability forecasts; the prototype uses one specified event, not an undifferentiated seasonal score.
Open sourceDD-NRW JICA non-revenue water training materials
Institution publication. Training materials, section1.1, IWA water-balance table. NRW, unbilled authorized use, apparent and real losses are distinct components.
Open sourceDD-ILO ILO controlling occupational risks
Institution publication. Controlling risks; hierarchy of controls. Evidence-led control review; no universal numeric risk score or clearance.
Open sourceDD-GBIF GBIF biological survey publishing guide
Institution publication. Version1.0.2, sections5.4 to5.7 and7.3. Survey event, effort, protocol, sampling scope and non-detection context; not a population estimator.
Open sourceDD-LOCAL 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.
Open sourcePES-FAO FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development
Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.
Open sourceUSLE factor product
Verified published formula · Government publication
1980 technical publication SA-TP 11; Universal Soil Loss Equation, printed page 2; metric conversion appendix, printed page 40
The historical source verifies the factor product. Local factor choice and suitability still need confirmation; this is not a full RUSLE2 implementation.
Enterprise gross margin
Verified published formula · Institution publication
Chapter 4, Gross margin and section 4.7.1
Per-hectare and variable-cost break-even outputs are algebraic rearrangements. Local costs, prices and interpretation still need confirmation.
Discounted cash-flow NPV
Verified published formula · Institution publication
Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value
The five-year horizon, discount rate and cash assumptions are local settings. Verification does not approve an investment or loan.
Carbon stock-difference component
Verified published component · Institution publication
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change · 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 2
Section 2.3.1.1, equation 2.8, stock-difference method
The screen reports the period total. IPCC annualisation requires elapsed years. Pools, inventory inputs and local application still need confirmation.
Soil-carbon stock with volume correction
Verified published formula · Institution publication
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change · Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF
Section 4.3.3.5.4, equation 4.3.3, printed page 4.106, PDF page 18
The screen converts carbon percent to a fraction and uses the published coarse-fragment volume convention. Sampling and bulk-density conventions still need confirmation.
Difference-in-differences arithmetic
Verified published formula · Institution publication
World Bank · Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition
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.
Sample coefficient of variation
Verified published formula · Government publication
National Institute of Standards and Technology United States · Dataplot Coefficient of Variation
Description, sample coefficient of variation and ratio-scale restrictions
Use a meaningful zero and positive mean. Local series selection and decision limits still need confirmation.
HHI concentration component
Verified published component · Government publication
United States Department of Justice · Herfindahl Hirschman Index
Definition and four-firm worked example
The screen uses fractional shares on a 0–1 scale, equivalent to the published percentage-share score divided by 10000. Local exposure categories and policy thresholds are not verified by this source.
Matched-pair RMSE
Verified published formula · Government publication
Environment and Climate Change Canada · What is Root Mean Square Error
Displayed RMSE equation and definitions of forecast, observation and verification count
Local verification periods, observation quality and forecast applicability still need confirmation.
Binary Brier score and skill component
Verified published component · Government publication
Sections A.3.1 and A.3.2, equations A.3.1 and A.3.3, printed page 239, PDF page 7
The Brier score is checked for binary events. The prototype permits a supplied reference forecast; confirm its independent baseline and comparability before interpreting skill.
Crop evapotranspiration ETc component
Verified published component · Institution publication
Chapter 5, Crop coefficient approach, equation 56
This verifies the ETc component only. Local water-balance allowances, coefficients and operating decisions still need confirmation.
Weighted estimation component
Verified published component · Institution publication
United Nations Statistics Division · Handbook of Surveys on Households and Individuals Final Draft
Chapter 9, paragraphs 38 and 39, printed page 9-9, PDF page 417; Chapter 8 weighting
Local weights, population coverage, design variance and ratio-yield interpretation still need confirmation. Positive illustrative weights do not demonstrate every calibration design.
IWA water-balance components
Verified published component · Institution publication
Asian Development Bank · The Issues and Challenges of Reducing Non-Revenue Water
Figure 4, printed page 15; Annex 1 Water Balance Definitions, printed pages 39–41, PDF pages 47–49
Apparent-loss estimates and the residual real-loss estimate remain local inputs with measurement uncertainty.