SHARED Calculations and decision rules

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.

Open source

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.

Open source

S72 IWA non-revenue water management

Published definition. Opening NRW definition; detailed water audit protocol not supplied. Retrieved text for review.

Open source

S75 Environment Canada: root mean squared error

Published method. What is Root Mean Square Error; displayed formula. Retrieved text for review.

Open source

S76 FAO enterprise and activity budgeting

Published method. Section 4.3.8 Gross margin; section 4.7 Parametric budgeting. Retrieved text for review.

Open source

PROTO SHARED prototype calculation and workflow implementation

Project implementation. DecisionSupportModel.spec/project and named model functions in each entry. Read only prototype inspection.

Open source

SRS SHARED Software Requirements Specification

Project requirement. Sections 5.4, 10, 12 and named requirement IDs in each rule. Version 1.6.

Open source

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.

Open source

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.

Open source

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.

Open source

S81 FAO Guidelines for financial economic environmental and social information

Published method. Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return subsections. Method text checked.

Open source

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.

Open source

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.

Open source

S84 NIST Coefficient of Variation

Published definition. Description of sample CV and ratio scale restriction. Definition checked.

Open source

S85 Turf area API

Software method. Version 7.2.0 area; square metres. Documentation checked.

Open source

S86 Turf distance API

Software method. Version 7.2.0 distance; Haversine method. Documentation checked.

Open source

S87 Turf length API

Software method. Version 7.2.0 length; selected units. Documentation checked.

Open source

S88 Turf buffer API

Software method. Version 7.2.0 buffer; radius and steps. Documentation checked.

Open source

S89 Turf intersect API

Software method. Version 7.2.0 intersect; polygon intersection. Documentation checked.

Open source

S90 Turf point in polygon API

Software method. Version 7.2.0 booleanPointInPolygon; boundary option. Documentation checked.

Open source

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.

Open source

S92 World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition

Published method. Chapter 7 Difference in Differences. Method text checked.

Open source

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.

https://www.statistics.gov.lk/Resource/en/Agriculture/paddystatistics/PaddyStatsPages/Yala2024Metric.pdf

https://www.statistics.gov.lk/Resource/en/Agriculture/paddystatistics/PaddyStatsPages/Yala2025Metric.pdf

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://land.copernicus.eu/en/products/global-dynamic-land-cover/copernicus-global-land-service-land-cover-100m-collection-3-epoch-2015-2019-globe

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://land.copernicus.eu/en/products/global-dynamic-land-cover/copernicus-global-land-service-land-cover-100m-collection-3-epoch-2015-2019-globe

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.

https://www.ilo.org/topics-and-sectors/occupational-safety-and-health-guide-labour-inspectors-and-other/how-can-occupational-safety-and-health-be-managed/controlling-risks

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.

https://sharedproto.wkslabs.com/reviews/dashboard-portfolio-20261027/srs-document/Calculations_and_Rules.html#domain-decisions

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.

https://desapublications.un.org/publications/system-environmental-economic-accounting-ecosystem-accounting-seea-ea

Find a decision

Find the inputs, worked example, calculation and sources for each decision.

Download the decision register · Institution review

820 candidate decisions

DecisionQuestion and inputsCalculation, sources and scope
DEC-DP01-001DP01Land change

Prioritize divisions with material land-use change

Inputs and example

Division 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CHANGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S01, S53, S63, S66

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-002DP01Development screening

Refer proposed developments overlapping constraints

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-003DP01Planning coverage

Commission missing divisional land-use plans

Inputs and example

Divisions 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-004DP01Field verification

Investigate field and map classification disagreements

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-005DP01Agricultural suitability

Shortlist land uses compatible with local conditions

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-006DP01Land conversion

Refer land-conversion applications for determination

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-007DP01Settlement planning

Compare candidate settlement expansion areas

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-008DP01Idle land

Prioritize investigations of uncultivated suitable land

Inputs and example

Hectares 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-009DP01Wetland protection

Flag proposed activities overlapping mapped wetlands

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-010DP01Riparian protection

Refer activities inside reviewed river reservations

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-011DP01Tenure conflicts

Resolve unresolved tenure objections before planning

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-012DP01Fragmentation

Identify fragmented agricultural holdings for coordination

Inputs and example

Parcels 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COMPOSITION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-013DP01Urban expansion

Review loss of agricultural land to built development

Inputs and example

Earlier 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CHANGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-014DP01Service access

Compare access improvements for isolated planning areas

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ROUTE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, LOCAL-SRS10, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-015DP01Restoration planning

Compare restoration land-use alternatives

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-016DP01Land degradation

Target detailed soil-loss assessment in planning units

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

EROSION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S80

Retained context sources

S48, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-017DP01Plan implementation

Investigate differences between planned and actual use

Inputs and example

Hectares 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-018DP01Public consultation

Resolve outstanding planning consultations

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-019DP01Map documentation

Correct incomplete land-use layer metadata

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP01-020DP01Survey scheduling

Schedule priority land-use map updates

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S01, S53, S63

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-001DP02Erosion

Select land units requiring erosion-control assessment

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

EROSION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S80

Retained context sources

S48, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-002DP02Conservation treatments

Compare contouring mulching and cover-crop alternatives

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-003DP02Erosion classes

Allocate survey effort across reviewed erosion classes

Inputs and example

Mapped 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COMPOSITION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-004DP02Soil carbon

Select sites for comparable soil-carbon monitoring

Inputs and example

Soil 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

SOILCARBON

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S79

Retained context sources

S49, S70, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-005DP02Soil fertility

Refer nutrient and acidity limitations for agronomic advice

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-006DP02Salinity

Prioritize investigations of salinity-affected land

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-007DP02Soil compaction

Select plots needing compaction management assessment

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-008DP02Infiltration

Compare practices to improve infiltration and runoff control

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-009DP02Water harvesting

Shortlist suitable farm water-harvesting locations

Inputs and example

Catchment 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-010DP02On-farm irrigation

Select improvements for low water productivity

Inputs and example

Saleable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-011DP02Watershed treatments

Prioritize connected watershed conservation interventions

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-012DP02Conservation inspection

Follow up incomplete conservation works

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-013DP02Agroclimate advice

Issue evidence packages for local agricultural advisories

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ANOMALY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS12, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-014DP02Monitoring network

Repair incomplete soil and weather observation coverage

Inputs and example

Expected 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FRESH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS17, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-015DP02Crop suitability

Review limiting soil and climate factors for proposed crops

Inputs and example

Soil 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-016DP02Demonstration trials

Evaluate conservation practice outcomes

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-017DP02Conservation economics

Compare conservation cost per verified treated hectare

Inputs and example

Labour 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S76, LOCAL-SRS15, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-018DP02Soil contamination

Refer suspect agricultural soil samples for investigation

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-019DP02Technical dissemination

Target conservation guidance where adoption is low

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP02-020DP02Model assurance

Review reproducibility of soil and land assessments

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S02, S11, S48

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-001DP03Seed adoption

Plan seed support around observed rice-category uptake

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COMPOSITION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-002DP03Production costs

Target crop production costs requiring intervention

Inputs and example

Labour 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S76, LOCAL-SRS15, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-003DP03Irrigation advice

Prepare crop-stage irrigation recommendations

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

WATER

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S69, DD-WATER, S78

Retained context sources

S68, S69, S50, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-004DP03Planting guidance

Adjust sowing guidance using observed planting progress

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-005DP03Variety selection

Compare varieties against local agronomic constraints

Inputs and example

Variety 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-006DP03Yield gaps

Prioritize locations with low comparable crop productivity

Inputs and example

Harvested 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-007DP03Pest surveillance

Prioritize field investigation of unusual pest incidence

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ANOMALY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-008DP03Disease management

Refer crop disease cases for diagnosis and control advice

Inputs and example

Symptoms; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-009DP03Seed certification

Prioritize seed lots awaiting required tests

Inputs and example

Lot 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-010DP03Seed supply

Plan seed procurement against seasonal demand

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INVENTORY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-011DP03Fertilizer advice

Refer soil-test-based nutrient requirements for review

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-012DP03Pesticide stewardship

Review proposed pesticide use against current conditions

Inputs and example

Product 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, DD-PESTICIDES, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-013DP03Extension delivery

Target extension services to unmet farmer needs

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-014DP03Post-harvest loss

Select crop stages needing loss-reduction measures

Inputs and example

Batch 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

LOSS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S57

Retained context sources

S57, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-015DP03Mechanization

Compare machinery service options for crop operations

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-016DP03Crop diversification

Compare crop enterprises under resource constraints

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-017DP03Farm income

Identify crop enterprises with weak gross margins

Inputs and example

Saleable 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

MARGIN

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S76

Retained context sources

S76, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-018DP03Weather losses

Assess yield change following documented weather events

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-019DP03Advisory effectiveness

Follow up farmers who received technical guidance

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP03-020DP03Research trials

Select crop technologies for further validation

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S03, S11, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-001DP04Paddy utilization

Target support to registered land not cultivated this season

Inputs and example

Registered 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-002DP04Support overlap

Review repeated farmer assistance before new allocation

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPEAT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS14, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-003DP04Minor irrigation

Prioritize service areas with unmet crop water needs

Inputs and example

Recorded 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-004DP04Agrarian services

Clear delayed farmer-service requests

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-005DP04Paddy register

Resolve conflicting parcel and cultivator records

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-006DP04Cultivation disputes

Refer unresolved cultivation-right disputes

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-007DP04Land conversion

Screen paddy conversion requests for formal determination

Inputs and example

Parcel 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-008DP04Tank rehabilitation

Compare minor-tank rehabilitation alternatives

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-009DP04Farmer organizations

Review organization registration and governance compliance

Inputs and example

Organization 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-010DP04Organization finance

Follow up unreconciled farmer-organization funds

Inputs and example

Opening 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-011DP04Crop damage

Prioritize verification of reported crop damage

Inputs and example

Claim 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-012DP04Subsidy administration

Refer complete subsidy applications for approval

Inputs and example

Applicant 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-013DP04Input distribution

Plan timely distribution of approved farm inputs

Inputs and example

Physical 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INVENTORY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-014DP04Service centres

Allocate staff to agrarian centres with workload gaps

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-015DP04Canal maintenance

Schedule communal minor-irrigation maintenance

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-016DP04Farmer participation

Improve representation in cultivation meetings

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-017DP04Tank reservations

Refer encroachment concerns for field and legal review

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-018DP04Irrigation equity

Review head-end and tail-end water-delivery differences

Inputs and example

Head-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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-019DP04Registry updates

Schedule outdated farmer and land record checks

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP04-020DP04Service outcomes

Evaluate whether agrarian support improved cultivation

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S04, S55

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-001DP05Command water demand

Prepare additional irrigation allocation proposals

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

WATER

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S69, DD-WATER, S78

Retained context sources

S68, S69, S50, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-002DP05Gauge operations

Restore stale river and reservoir observations

Inputs and example

Expected 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FRESH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS17, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-003DP05Canal performance

Prioritize canals with delivery shortfalls

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-004DP05Reservoir operation

Review storage consequences of proposed releases

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-005DP05Dam safety

Escalate dam inspection defects requiring engineering action

Inputs and example

Dam 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-006DP05Flood readiness

Prepare response options from authorized hydrological evidence

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-007DP05Drought allocation

Compare feasible drought water-allocation alternatives

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-008DP05Reservoir sedimentation

Prioritize bathymetric surveys and desilting appraisal

Inputs and example

Earlier 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CHANGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-009DP05Canal rehabilitation

Prioritize repair packages within engineering and budget limits

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-010DP05Drainage

Select drainage improvements for persistently waterlogged areas

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-011DP05Salinity exclusion

Investigate saline intrusion affecting irrigated land

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-012DP05Gate scheduling

Schedule approved gate operations without conflicts

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-013DP05Water productivity

Target schemes with low crop output per water delivered

Inputs and example

Saleable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-014DP05Environmental flows

Flag proposed releases inconsistent with reviewed flow conditions

Inputs and example

Supplied 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-015DP05Hydrological models

Require reproducible calibration before model use

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-016DP05Pumping systems

Compare energy performance of lift-irrigation stations

Inputs and example

Electric 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-017DP05Rehabilitation investment

Appraise reservoir rehabilitation cash-flow alternatives

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-018DP05Construction delivery

Investigate delayed irrigation construction milestones

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-019DP05Spare parts

Prevent shortages of critical irrigation equipment spares

Inputs and example

Physical 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INVENTORY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP05-020DP05Public information

Correct missing metadata in published reservoir information

Inputs and example

Reservoir 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S05, S06, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-001DP06Seasonal cropping

Review cropping plans against calculated water requirements

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

WATER

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S69, DD-WATER, S78

Retained context sources

S68, S69, S50, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-002DP06Water delivery

Correct system-level water-delivery shortfalls

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-003DP06Reservoir networks

Review linked-reservoir storage and transfer scenarios

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-004DP06Planning evidence

Restore stale data feeds used in seasonal planning

Inputs and example

Expected 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FRESH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS17, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-005DP06Multi-sector allocation

Compare agriculture energy and domestic-water allocations

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-006DP06Drought response

Prioritize demand-management options during shortages

Inputs and example

System 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-007DP06Land allocation

Refer agricultural and commercial land requests for approval

Inputs and example

Parcel 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-008DP06Land conversion

Does this proposed use fit the system plan?

Inputs and example

Case 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S08

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-009DP06Reservation protection

Does this activity overlap a reservoir or canal reservation?

Inputs and example

Case 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S08

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-010DP06Farmer livelihoods

Target livelihood support to uncovered eligible settlers

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-011DP06System productivity

Identify systems with low agricultural water productivity

Inputs and example

Saleable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-012DP06Crop diversification

Compare alternative cropping patterns for system plans

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-013DP06Irrigation assets

Prioritize Mahaweli infrastructure maintenance

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-014DP06Settlement services

Plan service capacity for settlement growth

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-015DP06Environmental restoration

Select riparian and catchment restoration alternatives

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-016DP06Aquaculture coordination

Review reservoir-use conflicts involving fisheries

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-017DP06Flood operations

Prepare coordinated operating options during high inflows

Inputs and example

Official 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-018DP06Investment delivery

Escalate delayed system-development milestones

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-019DP06Public consultation

Resolve objections to system development proposals

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP06-020DP06System reporting

Reconcile inconsistent land and water system codes

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S07, S08, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-001DP07Forest cover

Investigate comparable forest-cover changes

Inputs and example

Earlier 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CHANGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-002DP07Forest inventory

Prioritize forest plots missing structural measurements

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-003DP07Restoration survival

Target maintenance to poorly surviving planting cohorts

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SURVIVAL

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-004DP07Forest alerts

Assign unresolved forest-disturbance investigations

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-005DP07Fire preparedness

Prioritize fire prevention and preparedness locations

Inputs and example

Fuel 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-006DP07Encroachment

Refer suspected forest encroachment for verification

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-007DP07Restoration selection

Compare assisted regeneration and planting alternatives

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-008DP07Species selection

Shortlist restoration species suited to site conditions

Inputs and example

Species 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-009DP07Nursery supply

Plan seedling production for approved planting demand

Inputs and example

Physical 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INVENTORY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-010DP07Seed provenance

Review seed and seedling provenance before deployment

Inputs and example

Lot 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-011DP07Invasive plants

Prioritize invasive-species control and follow-up

Inputs and example

Species 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-012DP07Watershed protection

Prioritize forest catchments needing conservation action

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

EROSION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S80

Retained context sources

S48, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-013DP07Forest carbon

Review inventory evidence for carbon-stock estimates

Inputs and example

Earlier 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

CARBON

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S79

Retained context sources

S49, S70, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-014DP07Community forestry

Address gaps in community forestry participation

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-015DP07Timber authorization

Refer complete timber-use cases for formal determination

Inputs and example

Permit 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-016DP07Plantation management

Schedule silvicultural work by stand condition

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-017DP07Ecotourism

Compare visitor demand with safe site capacity

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-018DP07Biodiversity monitoring

Select comparable forest biodiversity surveys

Inputs and example

Observed 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BIODIVERSITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: DD-GBIF

Retained context sources

S45, S46, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-019DP07Patrol deployment

Compare feasible patrol coverage routes

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ROUTE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, LOCAL-SRS10, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP07-020DP07Forest records

Correct inconsistent forest and compartment classifications

Inputs and example

Forest 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S09, S48, S49

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-001DP08Rainfall anomalies

Prepare reviewed rainfall-anomaly evidence

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ANOMALY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS12, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-002DP08Dry and wet spells

Identify prolonged rainfall spells requiring advisory review

Inputs and example

Observation 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SPELL

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, S11, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-003DP08Station completeness

Prioritize stations with incomplete observations

Inputs and example

Expected 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FRESH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS17, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-004DP08Drought monitoring

Determine where historical rainfall supports SPI analysis

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SPI

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S82

Retained context sources

S52, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-005DP08Temperature extremes

Investigate unusual maximum and minimum temperatures

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ANOMALY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS12, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-006DP08Severe weather

Prepare official-warning review cases from accepted observations

Inputs and example

Forecast 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-007DP08Forecast verification

Review forecast errors before operational changes

Inputs and example

Archived 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FORECAST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S75

Retained context sources

S75, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-008DP08Seasonal forecasts

Assess seasonal forecast performance across past seasons

Inputs and example

Archived 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FORECAST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: DD-BRIER

Retained context sources

S75, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-009DP08Station siting

Select candidate locations for observation-network expansion

Inputs and example

Coverage 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-010DP08Instrument maintenance

Schedule calibration and repair of weather instruments

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-011DP08Data homogenization

Identify time series affected by station or instrument changes

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-012DP08Agrometeorology

Prioritize agricultural advisories by crop exposure

Inputs and example

Crop 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-013DP08Evapotranspiration

Assess weather-input fitness for agricultural water estimates

Inputs and example

Radiation; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-014DP08Marine services

Refer marine forecast exceptions for specialist review

Inputs and example

Wind; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-015DP08Aviation services

Prioritize aviation meteorological service interruptions

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RELIABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS18, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-016DP08Lightning exposure

Target awareness using verified lightning-risk evidence

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-017DP08Climate trends

Review long-term trends in homogeneous station records

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

TREND

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-018DP08Observation reconciliation

Investigate disagreement between nearby and reference sensors

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-019DP08Climate requests

Clear delayed requests for permitted climate data

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP08-020DP08Forecast publication

Check source rights and approval before publishing products

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S10, S11, S52

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-001DP09Crop economics

Target export crops with weak enterprise returns

Inputs and example

Saleable 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

MARGIN

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S76

Retained context sources

S76, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-002DP09Market opportunities

Prioritize feasible export-crop market development

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-003DP09Post-harvest quality

Select processing stages with excessive spice losses

Inputs and example

Batch 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

LOSS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S57

Retained context sources

S57, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-004DP09Crop productivity

Prioritize crop-area combinations with weak productivity

Inputs and example

Harvested 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-005DP09Crop suitability

Shortlist export crops suited to local soils and climate

Inputs and example

Crop 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-006DP09Planting materials

Plan certified planting-material supply

Inputs and example

Physical 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INVENTORY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-007DP09Plant health

Investigate emerging export-crop pest and disease patterns

Inputs and example

Reference 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ANOMALY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS12, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-008DP09Quality compliance

Refer spice quality results outside applicable specifications

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-009DP09Replanting

Compare rehabilitation and replanting of ageing crop stands

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-010DP09Extension coverage

Target export-crop growers lacking technical support

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-011DP09Certification readiness

Review grower evidence for requested certification

Inputs and example

Grower 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-012DP09Value addition

Appraise investments in grading drying and processing

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-013DP09Traceability

Resolve broken links from export-crop lots to farms

Inputs and example

Upstream 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-014DP09Harvest timing

Compare harvest windows against quality and market constraints

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-015DP09Climate adaptation

Compare shade water and soil adaptation practices

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-016DP09Subsidy follow-up

Verify establishment outcomes after crop-development assistance

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SURVIVAL

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-017DP09Research priorities

Select export-crop research questions with evidence gaps

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-018DP09Soil conservation

Prioritize erosion control in sloping export-crop lands

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

EROSION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S80

Retained context sources

S48, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-019DP09Grower records

Reconcile inconsistent crop names and varieties

Inputs and example

Source 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP09-020DP09Programme evaluation

Evaluate export-crop support outcomes beyond participation

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S12, S55, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-001DP10Variety adoption

Target district-specific rice variety extension

Inputs and example

Sown 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COMPOSITION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-002DP10Irrigation classes

Allocate support by rainfed and irrigated cultivation needs

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-003DP10Input costs

Investigate high local farm production costs

Inputs and example

Labour 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S76, LOCAL-SRS15, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-004DP10Sowing progress

Adjust extension schedules to planting progress

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-005DP10Provincial production

Address differences between crop targets and accepted output

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-006DP10Pest response

Prioritize local pest investigation visits

Inputs and example

Pest 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-007DP10Extension staffing

Redistribute extension effort where service demand exceeds capacity

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-008DP10Seed distribution

Match approved seasonal seed demand to valid stocks

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INVENTORY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-009DP10Soil testing

Schedule sampling where fertilizer advice lacks evidence

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-010DP10Demonstration farms

Select comparable sites for technology demonstrations

Inputs and example

Candidate 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-011DP10Training outcomes

Follow up training participants reaching verified adoption

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-012DP10Crop damage

Prioritize verification of provincial crop-loss reports

Inputs and example

Incident; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-013DP10Mechanization access

Plan shared machinery services for uncovered farming areas

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-014DP10Water-saving practices

Compare irrigation-management practices on equivalent farms

Inputs and example

Saleable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-015DP10Diversification

Shortlist locally viable alternative crop programmes

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-016DP10Horticulture

Prioritize vegetable and fruit post-harvest support

Inputs and example

Batch 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

LOSS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S57

Retained context sources

S57, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-017DP10Budget delivery

Reconcile provincial agriculture funding and verified activities

Inputs and example

Approved 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FUNDING

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-018DP10Service inclusion

Address underserved smallholder and vulnerable farmer groups

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-019DP10Reporting consistency

Correct differences between district crop returns

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP10-020DP10Provincial outcomes

Evaluate provincial agricultural programmes

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S11, S54

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-001DP11Output verification

Prioritize project outputs awaiting independent verification

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-002DP11Delivery performance

Investigate spending ahead of verified physical progress

Inputs and example

Phased 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

Open decision · Institution review

Proposed; awaiting scope confirmation

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-003DP11Reporting bottlenecks

Resolve source reviews blocking required project reports

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-004DP11Intervention overlap

Coordinate overlapping interventions at the same sites

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPEAT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS14, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-005DP11Annual planning

Compare work-plan alternatives within programme constraints

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-006DP11Funding commitments

Identify unfunded activities and unfulfilled co-financing

Inputs and example

Approved 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

Open decision · Institution review

Proposed; awaiting scope confirmation

Validation required

Validation required

FUNDING

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-007DP11Procurement scheduling

Prioritize procurements on the implementation critical path

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Proposed; awaiting scope confirmation

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-008DP11Contract performance

Escalate contract milestone delays and unresolved deliverables

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Proposed; awaiting scope confirmation

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-009DP11Safeguards

Refer unresolved environmental and social risks

Inputs and example

Activity 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-010DP11Grievances

Escalate overdue programme grievances through approved channels

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-011DP11Participation equity

Target gaps in access to project benefits

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-012DP11Change control

Compare material scope-change alternatives before approval

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-013DP11Decision conditions

Block affected work with unmet mandatory approval conditions

Inputs and example

Decision 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-014DP11Partner coordination

Resolve dependency conflicts between implementing partners

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-015DP11Outcome evaluation

Assess verified programme outcomes and attribution limits

Inputs and example

Intervention 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-016DP11Risk financing

Compare financial consequences of implementation scenarios

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-017DP11Asset handover

Identify assets lacking verified maintenance and ownership arrangements

Inputs and example

Asset 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-018DP11Learning and scaling

Select interventions for further testing or scaling

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-019DP11Evidence catalogue

Correct incomplete references in reporting evidence packages

Inputs and example

Evidence 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP11-020DP11Project closure

Resolve outstanding financial technical and safeguard obligations

Inputs and example

Closure 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S13, S59, S74

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-001DP12Ecosystem change

Prioritize ecosystem types with comparable extent or condition decline

Inputs and example

Earlier 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CHANGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-002DP12Soil-carbon monitoring

Select comparable soil-carbon monitoring locations

Inputs and example

Soil 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

SOILCARBON

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S79

Retained context sources

S49, S70, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-003DP12Biodiversity evidence

Improve surveys with insufficient sampling effort

Inputs and example

Observed 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BIODIVERSITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: DD-GBIF

Retained context sources

S45, S46, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-004DP12Forest-carbon estimates

Select defensible evidence for forest-carbon assessment

Inputs and example

Earlier 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

CARBON

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S79

Retained context sources

S49, S70, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-005DP12Landscape restoration

Compare landscape restoration opportunities

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-006DP12Agroforestry design

Compare locally suitable tree-crop combinations

Inputs and example

Species 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-007DP12Research design

Select study designs capable of answering intervention questions

Inputs and example

Hypothesis; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-008DP12Sampling allocation

Allocate field effort across environmental strata

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-009DP12Data harmonization

Resolve incompatible ecological concepts before combining datasets

Inputs and example

Source 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-010DP12Model validation

Require independent validation of landscape models

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-011DP12Hydrological evidence

Assess whether land-management changes affect water outcomes

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-012DP12Ecosystem services

Prepare separate physical service accounts

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCOUNT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S58

Retained context sources

S58, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-013DP12Trade-offs

Compare livelihood conservation and water-management alternatives

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-014DP12Carbon uncertainty

Prioritize measurements driving carbon-estimate uncertainty

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-015DP12Community knowledge

Resolve conflicting scientific and community observations

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-016DP12Gender and inclusion

Review whose knowledge and outcomes research represents

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-017DP12Long-term monitoring

Sustain observation coverage beyond initial field campaigns

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-018DP12Open science

Determine which research outputs can be shared

Inputs and example

Dataset 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-019DP12Knowledge products

Prioritize evidence products requested by decision makers

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP12-020DP12Research translation

Evaluate uptake and consequences of research recommendations

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S45, S46

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-001DP13Field assignments

Follow up assignments lacking accepted field evidence

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-002DP13Monitoring coverage

Schedule visits to unobserved monitoring sites

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-003DP13Community cases

Prioritize unresolved community cases by agreed urgency

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-004DP13Spatial verification

Resolve missing or conflicting locations of field activities

Inputs and example

Measured 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-005DP13Watershed plans

Compare community priorities for sub-watershed actions

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-006DP13Intervention scheduling

Coordinate field works around seasonal and resource limits

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-007DP13Restoration follow-up

Target visits to restoration cohorts with uncertain survival

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SURVIVAL

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-008DP13Conservation works

Verify completed soil and water conservation treatments

Inputs and example

Work 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-009DP13Water problems

Refer local water-shortage evidence to responsible institutions

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-010DP13Farmer practice uptake

Follow up adoption after field demonstrations

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-011DP13Local hazards

Escalate verified hazard observations to competent authorities

Inputs and example

Observation; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-012DP13Team workload

Redistribute assignments where field workload exceeds capacity

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-013DP13Safeguard conditions

Check safeguards before starting field interventions

Inputs and example

Site 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-014DP13Equipment logistics

Plan shared field equipment and supply availability

Inputs and example

Field-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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INVENTORY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-015DP13Community consultation

Resolve objections to sub-watershed implementation plans

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-016DP13Progress exceptions

Investigate deviations from agreed field work plans

Inputs and example

Agreed 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-017DP13Access routes

Select feasible routes for field monitoring visits

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ROUTE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, LOCAL-SRS10, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-018DP13Support duplication

Review overlapping field support to the same participants

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPEAT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS14, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-019DP13Field form quality

Correct incomplete field records before review

Inputs and example

Record 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP13-020DP13Local outcomes

Assess whether completed interventions improved local outcomes

Inputs and example

Intervention 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-001DP14Boundary selection

Select the authoritative survey edition for a case

Inputs and example

Boundary 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-002DP14Parcel reconciliation

Investigate differences in registered and surveyed parcel area

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-003DP14Terrain screening

Identify terrain requiring detailed site survey

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-004DP14Field verification

Prioritize features needing ground verification

Inputs and example

Feature 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-005DP14Cadastral backlog

Prioritize pending cadastral survey requests

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-006DP14Control network

Schedule geodetic control inspection and restoration

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-007DP14Coordinate transformation

Validate transformations before combining spatial datasets

Inputs and example

Supplied 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-008DP14Survey accuracy

Refer surveys failing approved accuracy specifications

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-009DP14Aerial acquisition

Schedule aerial imagery for priority mapping gaps

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-010DP14Boundary disputes

Support formal review of conflicting boundary evidence

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-011DP14Topographic updates

Prioritize map sheets with significant feature changes

Inputs and example

Features 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CHANGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-012DP14Survey permissions

Check required access and survey approvals

Inputs and example

Survey 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-013DP14Elevation products

Select elevation datasets fit for intended analysis

Inputs and example

Resolution; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-014DP14Encroachment surveys

Identify areas needing authoritative boundary re-establishment

Inputs and example

Boundary 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-015DP14Survey resources

Balance crew instrument and travel requirements

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-016DP14Map delivery

Track survey products through independent checking

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-017DP14Land information

Resolve inconsistent parcel identifiers across institutions

Inputs and example

Cadastral 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-018DP14Survey cost

Compare costs for equivalent survey work types

Inputs and example

Labour 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S76, LOCAL-SRS15, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-019DP14Map distribution

Clear delayed requests for permitted map products

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP14-020DP14Historical integrity

Retain superseded survey editions with traceable revisions

Inputs and example

Current 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S15

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-001DP15Published services

Prioritize unavailable GIS services by user need

Inputs and example

Scheduled 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RELIABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS18, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-002DP15Metadata currency

Request updates for outdated source metadata

Inputs and example

Expected 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FRESH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS17, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-003DP15Semantic conflicts

Resolve conflicting classifications between publishers

Inputs and example

Source 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-004DP15Withdrawn rights

Restrict products using withdrawn source permissions

Inputs and example

Source 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-005DP15Service onboarding

Check institutional agreements before publishing a source

Inputs and example

Provider 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-006DP15Coordinate standards

Reject unverified spatial-reference transformations

Inputs and example

Supplied 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-007DP15National coverage

Prioritize gaps in fundamental geospatial datasets

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-008DP15Geometry quality

Route invalid or inconsistent geometries for correction

Inputs and example

Feature 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-009DP15Service performance

Identify GIS endpoints missing approved response targets

Inputs and example

Endpoint/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RELIABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS18, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-010DP15Schema changes

Review downstream effects of source schema revisions

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-011DP15Data lineage

Identify products lacking traceable source versions

Inputs and example

Product 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-012DP15Duplicate catalogues

Consolidate duplicate catalogue references without copying data

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-013DP15Sensitive layers

Determine safe access and aggregation for restricted layers

Inputs and example

Classification; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-014DP15Interoperability

Prioritize services failing documented exchange requirements

Inputs and example

Service 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-015DP15Incident response

Assign source-feed failures to accountable custodians

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-016DP15Update scheduling

Coordinate shared-layer refreshes with consumers

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-017DP15Catalogue discovery

Improve discovery of poorly described geospatial resources

Inputs and example

Dataset 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-018DP15Spatial joins

Verify cross-agency joins before publishing combined analyses

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-019DP15Usage requests

Prioritize dataset requests using recorded service demand

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP15-020DP15Disaster resilience

Test recovery of essential catalogue and service metadata

Inputs and example

Recovery 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RELIABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS18, S16, S17

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-001DP16Affected households

Prioritize districts with verified disaster impacts

Inputs and example

Households 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-002DP16Damage and loss

Direct sector assessments where losses are greatest

Inputs and example

Damaged 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S76, LOCAL-SRS15, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-003DP16Safe centres

Address safe-centre capacity and accessibility gaps

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-004DP16Recovery funding

Target documented recovery needs lacking confirmed funding

Inputs and example

Approved 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FUNDING

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-005DP16Warning dissemination

Identify communities missing authorized warnings

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-006DP16Evacuation planning

Compare feasible evacuation routes and shelter access

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ROUTE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, LOCAL-SRS10, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-007DP16Emergency resources

Allocate response resources against assessed needs

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-008DP16Relief distribution

Review overlapping or missing relief deliveries

Inputs and example

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; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPEAT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS14, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-009DP16Relief stocks

Prevent critical shortages in emergency stores

Inputs and example

Physical 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INVENTORY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-010DP16Preparedness drills

Resolve failures identified during preparedness exercises

Inputs and example

Exercise 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-011DP16Risk reduction

Compare mitigation proposals for exposed communities

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-012DP16Critical facilities

Prioritize schools hospitals and utilities for risk assessment

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-013DP16Rapid assessments

Identify areas awaiting reliable rapid damage assessments

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-014DP16Response coordination

Resolve incompatible assignments across response agencies

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-015DP16Recovery progress

Escalate delayed reconstruction and rehabilitation work

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-016DP16Impact trends

Review changing disaster impacts across comparable events

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

TREND

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-017DP16Contingency plans

Check whether local contingency plans remain usable

Inputs and example

Plan 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-018DP16Public information

Verify authority and validity before publishing alerts

Inputs and example

Issuing 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-019DP16Response evaluation

Assess response effectiveness and unintended consequences

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP16-020DP16Incident records

Reconcile duplicate disaster incident reports

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S18

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-001DP17Site clearance

Refer proposed sites overlapping landslide hazard zones

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-002DP17Hazard-map updates

Prioritize zones with outdated or incomplete hazard evidence

Inputs and example

Map 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-003DP17Asset exposure

Prioritize exposed assets for site-specific investigation

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-004DP17Rainfall investigations

Investigate rainfall patterns associated with landslides

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

TREND

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-005DP17Slope inspections

Escalate observed cracks movement and drainage defects

Inputs and example

Slope 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-006DP17Monitoring systems

Repair failed landslide-monitoring instruments

Inputs and example

Expected 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FRESH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS17, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-007DP17Slope stabilization

Compare engineering mitigation alternatives

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-008DP17Relocation assessment

Refer relocation alternatives for competent determination

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-009DP17Construction conditions

Verify compliance with site-clearance conditions

Inputs and example

Clearance 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-010DP17Geotechnical evidence

Resolve conflicting ground-investigation results

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-011DP17Early warning evidence

Prepare technical review of landslide-warning conditions

Inputs and example

Rainfall; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-012DP17Laboratory workload

Prioritize delayed geotechnical testing requests

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-013DP17Road slopes

Prioritize assessment of unstable road cuts

Inputs and example

Road 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-014DP17Post-event inspection

Schedule investigations after reported slope failures

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-015DP17Drainage remediation

Compare options to reduce slope-related drainage problems

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-016DP17Model validation

Require validation of landslide susceptibility models

Inputs and example

Supplied 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-017DP17Mitigation outcomes

Evaluate stabilization performance after completion

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-018DP17Land-use advice

Identify developments needing additional terrain investigation

Inputs and example

Development 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-019DP17Community awareness

Target exposed communities missing preparedness guidance

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP17-020DP17Case administration

Clear incomplete landslide assessment applications

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S19

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-001DP18Water pollution

Investigate water samples exceeding applicable limits

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, DD-CEA, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-002DP18Sampling coverage

Prioritize river stretches lacking recent samples

Inputs and example

River 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-003DP18Mitigation compliance

Follow up unverified environmental mitigation obligations

Inputs and example

Permit 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-004DP18Water anomalies

Investigate unusual changes in water-quality observations

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ANOMALY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS12, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-005DP18Environmental licensing

Refer complete license applications to the competent authority

Inputs and example

Activity 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-006DP18License renewal

Prioritize licenses nearing expiry with unresolved conditions

Inputs and example

Licence-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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-007DP18Environmental assessment

Screen project proposals for required assessment pathways

Inputs and example

Project 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-008DP18Air pollution

Investigate measured air-quality departures from applicable limits

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, DD-CEA, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-009DP18Noise complaints

Prioritize investigation of evidence-supported noise complaints

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, DD-CEA, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-010DP18Industrial effluent

Target facilities with unresolved effluent-control failures

Inputs and example

Facility; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-011DP18Waste management

Compare waste collection treatment and disposal options

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-012DP18Hazardous waste

Review traceability of hazardous-waste transfers

Inputs and example

Upstream 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-013DP18Wetland conservation

Refer development pressure overlapping protected wetland evidence

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-014DP18Public complaints

Escalate unresolved pollution complaints

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-015DP18Inspection targeting

Schedule inspections by approved pollution-risk priorities

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-016DP18Incident response

Coordinate investigation of reported pollution incidents

Inputs and example

Incident; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-017DP18Environmental education

Target awareness programmes to documented compliance gaps

Inputs and example

Facilities 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-018DP18Restoration outcomes

Assess environmental recovery after remedial works

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-019DP18Laboratory evidence

Review sample custody and analytical validity before action

Inputs and example

Sample 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP18-020DP18Environmental records

Harmonize classifications without altering source meanings

Inputs and example

Source 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S20, S21

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-001DP19Survey coverage

Improve comparable biodiversity surveys in protected areas

Inputs and example

Observed 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BIODIVERSITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: DD-GBIF

Retained context sources

S45, S46, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-002DP19Wildlife incidents

Prioritize unresolved wildlife conflict and rescue cases

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-003DP19Habitat exposure

Identify threatened-species habitats requiring protection review

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-004DP19Threat reduction

Refer candidate conservation actions for specialist threat assessment

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

STAR

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S71

Retained context sources

S71, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-005DP19Human-elephant conflict

Compare locally evidenced coexistence interventions

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-006DP19Fence maintenance

Prioritize defects in approved protective fences

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-007DP19Wildlife corridors

Review proposed activities affecting habitat connectivity

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-008DP19Poaching response

Assign verified illegal-activity observations for authorized investigation

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-009DP19Patrol coverage

Compare patrol routes for permitted priority areas

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ROUTE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, LOCAL-SRS10, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-010DP19Invasive species

Select invasive-species management priorities

Inputs and example

Species; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-011DP19Visitor management

Review visitor pressure against approved protected-area capacity

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-012DP19Research permissions

Check research proposals against current permit requirements

Inputs and example

Research 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-013DP19Sensitive information

Determine safe release of wildlife location data

Inputs and example

Species 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-014DP19Habitat restoration

Compare restoration actions for degraded wildlife habitats

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-015DP19Population monitoring

Review population trends using comparable survey effort

Inputs and example

Recorded 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BIODIVERSITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: DD-GBIF

Retained context sources

S45, S46, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-016DP19Wildlife health

Refer unusual mortality or illness clusters to specialists

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ANOMALY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS12, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-017DP19Rescue capacity

Allocate licensed rescue resources against current demand

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-018DP19Community outreach

Target conflict-affected communities lacking support

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-019DP19Conservation effectiveness

Evaluate conservation outcomes and adverse effects

Inputs and example

Intervention 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP19-020DP19Protected-area records

Resolve conflicting protected-area and habitat labels

Inputs and example

Boundary 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S22, S23, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-001DP20Agricultural patterns

Identify crop variety and irrigation patterns needing analysis

Inputs and example

Final 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

SURVEY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S91

Retained context sources

S67, S77, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-002DP20Poverty reporting

Select defensible geographic poverty and income comparisons

Inputs and example

Final 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

SURVEY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S91

Retained context sources

S67, S77, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-003DP20Small-area reporting

Determine whether estimates support district or divisional reporting

Inputs and example

Responding 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SURVEY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S91

Retained context sources

S67, S77, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-004DP20Statistical revisions

Identify publications affected by revised statistical series

Inputs and example

Statistical 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CHANGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-005DP20Survey design

Compare survey designs against precision and cost requirements

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-006DP20Nonresponse

Target follow-up where survey response is incomplete

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-007DP20Frame quality

Resolve duplicate or missing units in statistical frames

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-008DP20Questionnaire quality

Correct inconsistent responses before statistical acceptance

Inputs and example

Questionnaire 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-009DP20Field deployment

Allocate enumerators to achieve survey coverage

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-010DP20Confidentiality

Review disclosure risk before publishing statistical tables

Inputs and example

Cell 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-011DP20Method comparability

Determine whether series can be compared across revisions

Inputs and example

Definitions; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-012DP20Release scheduling

Prioritize delayed statistical releases and dependencies

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-013DP20Crop estimates

Reconcile crop area yield and production estimates

Inputs and example

Final 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

SURVEY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S91

Retained context sources

S67, S77, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-014DP20Price statistics

Investigate unusual observations before index compilation

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ANOMALY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS12, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-015DP20Labour statistics

Review geographic differences using comparable labour definitions

Inputs and example

Final 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

SURVEY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S91

Retained context sources

S67, S77, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-016DP20Demographic change

Identify population changes requiring denominator updates

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CHANGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-017DP20Administrative sources

Assess administrative datasets before statistical reuse

Inputs and example

Coverage; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-018DP20Data access services

Prioritize permitted requests for statistical extracts

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-019DP20Reproducible estimates

Independently reproduce published estimates and revisions

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP20-020DP20Classification maintenance

Resolve unmapped economic agricultural and geographic codes

Inputs and example

Source 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S24, S67, S77

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-001DP21Groundwater depletion

Investigate wells showing sustained drawdown

Inputs and example

Groundwater 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

TREND

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-002DP21Seasonal groundwater

Adjust monitoring to seasonal groundwater variation

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ANOMALY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS12, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-003DP21Groundwater quality

Investigate wells exceeding applicable use-specific limits

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-004DP21Monitoring coverage

Select groundwater areas needing observation wells

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-005DP21Borehole siting

Shortlist sites requiring detailed groundwater investigation

Inputs and example

Geology; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-006DP21Pumping tests

Refer pumping-test results for safe-abstraction assessment

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-007DP21Abstraction balance

Compare recorded abstraction with reviewed aquifer budgets

Inputs and example

Opening 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-008DP21Well protection

Investigate contamination sources near supply wells

Inputs and example

Documented 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-009DP21Saline intrusion

Prioritize coastal groundwater salinity investigations

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

TREND

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-010DP21Industrial abstraction

Refer industrial groundwater requests for determination

Inputs and example

Demand; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-011DP21Recharge options

Compare managed-recharge alternatives

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-012DP21Mining impacts

Investigate groundwater changes around extraction sites

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-013DP21Well rehabilitation

Prioritize rehabilitation of poorly performing wells

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-014DP21Laboratory turnaround

Clear delayed groundwater laboratory analyses

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-015DP21Drought supply

Compare feasible groundwater contingency supplies

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-016DP21Drilling performance

Review unsuccessful drilling and cost patterns

Inputs and example

Drilling 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-017DP21Monitoring devices

Restore failed groundwater loggers and calibration

Inputs and example

Expected 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FRESH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS17, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-018DP21Public evidence

Prepare permitted groundwater information releases

Inputs and example

Dataset; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-019DP21Aquifer models

Validate aquifer-model predictions before planning use

Inputs and example

Expected 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP21-020DP21Well registry

Resolve inconsistent well identifiers and construction metadata

Inputs and example

Well 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S25, S26, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-001DP22Non-revenue water

Prioritize systems with large unexplained water balances

Inputs and example

Corrected 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

NRW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: DD-NRW

Retained context sources

S72, S27, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-002DP22Leakage management

Target leakage investigations by service area

Inputs and example

Corrected 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

NRW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: DD-NRW

Retained context sources

S72, S27, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-003DP22Service expansion

Prioritize underserved areas for water-service appraisal

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-004DP22Water quality

Refer treated-water results outside applicable limits

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-005DP22Water safety planning

Prioritize source-to-consumer hazards and controls

Inputs and example

Supply 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S56

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-006DP22Treatment capacity

Compare peak demand with usable treatment capacity

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-007DP22Pressure management

Investigate pressure outside reviewed operating conditions

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-008DP22Pipe replacement

Prioritize pipe rehabilitation using verified asset condition

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-009DP22Pump efficiency

Select pumping systems for energy-efficiency appraisal

Inputs and example

Electric 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-010DP22Meter replacement

Schedule verification of suspect customer and bulk meters

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-011DP22Supply interruptions

Address recurrent and prolonged supply outages

Inputs and example

Supply 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RELIABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS18, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-012DP22Source security

Compare alternative sources under seasonal stress

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-013DP22Connection requests

Prioritize delayed service-connection applications

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-014DP22Customer complaints

Escalate unresolved water and sanitation complaints

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-015DP22Chemical supply

Prevent treatment interruptions from chemical shortages

Inputs and example

Physical 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INVENTORY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-016DP22Wastewater treatment

Investigate effluent performance against permit conditions

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-017DP22Sewer overflows

Prioritize investigation of sewer overflow risks

Inputs and example

Incident 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-018DP22Capital investments

Compare water-service investment alternatives

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-019DP22Community systems

Target support to poorly functioning community water schemes

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP22-020DP22Network records

Resolve inconsistent asset and customer service-area references

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S26, S27, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-001DP23Geological constraints

Refer proposed sites overlapping geological constraints

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-002DP23Mapping coverage

Commission geological mapping in poorly covered catchments

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-003DP23Site investigation

Select parcels requiring detailed geological investigation

Inputs and example

Geology; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-004DP23Map revisions

Reassess site screening after geological-map changes

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CHANGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-005DP23Mining licenses

Refer complete mining applications for authorized determination

Inputs and example

Application; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-006DP23Extraction monitoring

Investigate extraction differing from authorized quantities

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-007DP23Mine rehabilitation

Verify rehabilitation obligations before closure review

Inputs and example

Mine 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-008DP23River sand

Identify extraction proposals needing hydrological and ecological review

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-009DP23Quarry impacts

Investigate documented quarry effects on nearby receptors

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-010DP23Illegal extraction

Refer suspected unlicensed extraction for investigation

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-011DP23Mineral resources

Prioritize exploration using evidence and feasibility constraints

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-012DP23Groundwater interactions

Review mining proposals affecting groundwater systems

Inputs and example

Mine 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-013DP23Laboratory services

Prioritize pending mineral and material analyses

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-014DP23Sample integrity

Resolve analytical discrepancies before resource assessment

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-015DP23Transport permissions

Check mineral transport documents against authorized sources

Inputs and example

Shipment; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-016DP23Mine inspections

Schedule inspections according to approved risk priorities

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-017DP23Revenue reconciliation

Investigate differences in extraction-related payable and recorded receipts

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-018DP23Geohazard evidence

Escalate verified geohazard concerns to relevant specialists

Inputs and example

Observed 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-019DP23Resource estimates

Require reproducible mineral-resource estimation evidence

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP23-020DP23Geological catalogue

Improve discoverability and provenance of geological records

Inputs and example

Map 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S28

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-001DP24Land applications

Prioritize unresolved state-land applications

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-002DP24Lease reviews

Schedule lease and permit reviews before due dates

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-003DP24Digitization

Target gaps in state-land record digitization

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-004DP24Processing performance

Address delays in administrative land requests

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-005DP24Land allocation

Refer allocation cases with complete eligibility evidence

Inputs and example

Applicant; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-006DP24Boundary reconciliation

Resolve conflicting state-land parcel records

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-007DP24Lease revenue

Reconcile assessed rents collections and outstanding balances

Inputs and example

Opening 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-008DP24Arrears follow-up

Prioritize overdue lease revenue cases

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-009DP24Permit conditions

Refer non-compliance with recorded land-use conditions

Inputs and example

Permit 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-010DP24Succession cases

Refer succession and transfer requests for determination

Inputs and example

Permit; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-011DP24Public-purpose land

Compare suitable state parcels for public facilities

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-012DP24Land disputes

Resolve outstanding claims and objections before determination

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-013DP24Land reservations

Review allocation requests overlapping protected reservations

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-014DP24Institutional handover

Verify documentation for inter-agency land transfers

Inputs and example

Parcel; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-015DP24Unauthorized occupation

Refer suspected unauthorized occupation for investigation

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-016DP24Valuation review

Request valuation updates where lease assessments are outdated

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-017DP24Land-use effectiveness

Review whether allocated land serves approved purposes

Inputs and example

Allocated 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-018DP24Record access

Determine permitted release of land and applicant information

Inputs and example

Requested 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-019DP24Document quality

Correct missing references in electronic land files

Inputs and example

Case 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP24-020DP24Office capacity

Allocate case-processing capacity across land offices

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-001DP25Price spreads

Investigate large comparable farmgate wholesale and retail spreads

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

PRICE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S31, S34, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-002DP25Price volatility

Prioritize commodities with unusual price variability

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

VOLATILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S84

Retained context sources

S31, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-003DP25Seasonal markets

Inform seasonal marketing using comparable historical patterns

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

TREND

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-004DP25Market comparisons

Identify markets requiring closer price-distribution study

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

DISTRIBUTION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-005DP25Market coverage

Expand observations where price reporting is incomplete

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-006DP25Food affordability

Compare documented food-basket costs across locations

Inputs and example

Raw 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S76, LOCAL-SRS15, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-007DP25Farmer returns

Assess enterprise margins for policy research

Inputs and example

Saleable 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

MARGIN

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S76

Retained context sources

S76, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-008DP25Marketing losses

Identify value-chain stages requiring loss studies

Inputs and example

Batch 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

LOSS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S57

Retained context sources

S57, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-009DP25Market integration

Investigate persistent differences between connected markets

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

PRICE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S31, S34, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-010DP25Policy evaluation

Evaluate agricultural policy outcomes with credible comparisons

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-011DP25Input markets

Investigate shifts in agricultural input expenditure

Inputs and example

Specified 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S76, LOCAL-SRS15, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-012DP25Farmer organization research

Identify organizational barriers to collective marketing

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-013DP25Land and labour

Review farm labour costs and labour-use differences

Inputs and example

Person-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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-014DP25Food supply disruptions

Prioritize research on documented market supply shocks

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ANOMALY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-015DP25Storage investments

Compare storage and handling options for perishables

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-016DP25Survey design

Select agrarian research sampling strategies

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-017DP25Publication quality

Resolve contradictory market observations before release

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-018DP25Training priorities

Target agrarian training to documented capability gaps

Inputs and example

Participants 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-019DP25Research requests

Prioritize policy-analysis requests by decision deadlines

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP25-020DP25Evidence reproducibility

Independently reproduce agrarian research findings

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S31, S32, S57

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-001DP26Export destinations

Prioritize products and destination markets for support

Inputs and example

Recorded 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COMPOSITION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-002DP26Market dependence

Identify excessive dependence on few export markets

Inputs and example

Recorded 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

CONCENTRATION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S83

Retained context sources

S33, S34, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-003DP26Growth opportunities

Target product groups contributing to export growth

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CHANGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-004DP26Unit values

Investigate changing export unit values

Inputs and example

Recorded 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-005DP26Exporter readiness

Refer businesses to appropriate export-readiness support

Inputs and example

Enterprise; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-006DP26Market access

Identify unresolved market-entry requirements

Inputs and example

Product; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-007DP26Trade promotion

Compare proposed trade-promotion activities

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-008DP26Buyer matching

Match verified exporter offers with buyer requirements

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S33, S34, LOCAL-SRS15, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-009DP26Export diversification

Compare alternative products and markets under constraints

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-010DP26Exporter development

Target support to regions with uncovered export potential

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-011DP26Quality failures

Prioritize corrective support after shipment nonconformities

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-012DP26Brand development

Compare product branding and certification investments

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-013DP26Promotion outcomes

Evaluate realized outcomes of trade missions

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-014DP26Trade barriers

Escalate unresolved exporter market-access cases

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-015DP26Digital channels

Target exporters needing digital market capability

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-016DP26Sustainable exports

Review evidence supporting environmental product claims

Inputs and example

Claim; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-017DP26Logistics constraints

Compare export routes and delivery feasibility

Inputs and example

Supplied 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ROUTE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, LOCAL-SRS10, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-018DP26Support funding

Reconcile export-support commitments and verified delivery

Inputs and example

Approved 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FUNDING

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-019DP26Exporter directory

Correct outdated or duplicate exporter profiles

Inputs and example

Enterprise 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP26-020DP26Export policy impact

Assess outcomes of export-development interventions

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-001DP27Support uptake

Improve uptake of appropriate enterprise-support offers

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-002DP27Training progression

Follow trainees needing subsequent business assistance

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-003DP27Service delays

Prioritize enterprise assistance cases waiting longest

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-004DP27Geographic reach

Redirect outreach toward underserved target districts

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-005DP27Business viability

Refer enterprise plans for financial and market appraisal

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-006DP27Finance referral

Match enterprises to suitable finance-support pathways

Inputs and example

Enterprise 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-007DP27Mentoring

Allocate mentors to documented enterprise needs

Inputs and example

Documented 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S33, S34, LOCAL-SRS15, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-008DP27Market linkages

Match enterprise products with verified buyer demand

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S33, S34, LOCAL-SRS15, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-009DP27Enterprise survival

Target follow-up to supported businesses at risk of closure

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SURVIVAL

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-010DP27Business performance

Review changes in enterprise outcomes after assistance

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-011DP27Women and youth support

Address gaps in access to enterprise opportunities

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-012DP27Grant administration

Refer complete enterprise-grant applications for determination

Inputs and example

Scheme 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-013DP27Duplicate assistance

Review potentially overlapping enterprise subsidies

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPEAT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS14, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-014DP27Business skills

Prioritize training topics using verified capability gaps

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-015DP27Formalization support

Identify enterprises needing registration or compliance referrals

Inputs and example

Enterprise 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-016DP27Climate resilience

Compare enterprise adaptation options

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-017DP27Incubation capacity

Allocate incubation services within facility and adviser limits

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-018DP27Programme finance

Identify unfunded enterprise-support commitments

Inputs and example

Approved 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FUNDING

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-019DP27Enterprise registry

Resolve inconsistent enterprise identities before reporting

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP27-020DP27Programme effectiveness

Select enterprise-support approaches for continuation or redesign

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S35, S51, S59

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-001DP28Estate plots

Match eligible industrial demand to available developed plots

Inputs and example

Plot 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S33, S34, LOCAL-SRS15, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-002DP28Infrastructure readiness

Prioritize missing estate utilities and access infrastructure

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-003DP28Support outcomes

Verify enterprise outcomes following technical assistance

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-004DP28Estate requests

Resolve outstanding tenant-support requests

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-005DP28Technology upgrades

Compare industrial modernization alternatives

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-006DP28Resource productivity

Identify facilities with inefficient material and energy use

Inputs and example

Saleable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-007DP28Product quality

Target technical support to recurring quality failures

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-008DP28Industrial training

Schedule technical training around verified skill needs

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-009DP28New enterprise appraisal

Review proposed manufacturing projects against constraints

Inputs and example

Business 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-010DP28Estate maintenance

Prioritize shared infrastructure maintenance

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-011DP28Rent reconciliation

Follow up estate rent and lease-account discrepancies

Inputs and example

Opening 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-012DP28Pollution referrals

Refer industrial environmental concerns to competent agencies

Inputs and example

Facility; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-013DP28Common facilities

Compare demand for shared industrial processing facilities

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-014DP28Product development

Select feasible product-development support projects

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-015DP28Testing services

Reduce delays in technical testing and consultancy

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-016DP28Supply-chain linkages

Match industrial inputs by-products and buyer demand

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S33, S34, LOCAL-SRS15, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-017DP28Worker safety

Prioritize documented industrial safety concerns for specialist review

Inputs and example

Hazards; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: DD-ILO

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-018DP28Estate expansion

Compare locations for new industrial-estate capacity

Inputs and example

Land 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-019DP28Estate catalogue

Correct outdated plot and facility information

Inputs and example

Plot 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP28-020DP28Industrial outcomes

Evaluate whether technical support improved enterprise performance

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S36, S37

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-001DP29District projects

Escalate overdue district project milestones

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-002DP29Citizen services

Prioritize aging district service requests

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-003DP29Intervention coverage

Coordinate investment in areas missing planned services

Inputs and example

Defined 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-004DP29District reporting

Follow up missing or outdated divisional returns

Inputs and example

Expected 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FRESH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS17, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-005DP29District planning

Compare district development priorities within resource limits

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-006DP29Disaster coordination

Allocate district response resources against verified needs

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-007DP29Funding coordination

Identify district activities without confirmed financing

Inputs and example

Approved 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FUNDING

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-008DP29Land coordination

Resolve cross-agency land issues delaying public works

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-009DP29Infrastructure access

Compare service access across district communities

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ROUTE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, LOCAL-SRS10, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-010DP29Beneficiary overlap

Review overlapping assistance across district programmes

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPEAT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS14, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-011DP29Safeguard follow-up

Escalate unresolved safeguards in district investments

Inputs and example

Project 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-012DP29Divisional capacity

Target administrative support to overloaded divisions

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-013DP29District grievances

Resolve inter-agency grievances with clear ownership

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-014DP29Public consultation

Ensure affected groups are heard in district plans

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-015DP29Programme inclusion

Address documented exclusion from district services

Inputs and example

Eligible 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-016DP29Procurement dependencies

Schedule district procurements affecting critical works

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-017DP29Asset handover

Verify ownership and maintenance of completed public assets

Inputs and example

Asset; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-018DP29Outcome reporting

Assess district programme outcomes with stated limitations

Inputs and example

Intervention 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-019DP29Geographic consistency

Resolve district reporting boundary and code mismatches

Inputs and example

Source 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP29-020DP29Inter-agency decisions

Close district coordination cases with unmet dependencies

Inputs and example

Case 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-001DP30Administrative applications

Clear applications awaiting divisional administrative action

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-002DP30Service standards

Address divisional services exceeding approved response targets

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-003DP30Programme gaps

Target reported local programme-support gaps

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-004DP30Grama Niladhari returns

Follow up incomplete village-level reports

Inputs and example

Expected 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FRESH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS17, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-005DP30State-land referrals

Prepare complete land cases for the competent authority

Inputs and example

Parcel; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-006DP30Disaster relief

Prioritize verified local relief needs and avoid duplicate claims

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPEAT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS14, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-007DP30Social-service referrals

Route complete welfare cases to the responsible programme

Inputs and example

Applicant 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-008DP30Certificate services

Identify document-verification gaps delaying certificates

Inputs and example

Request; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-009DP30Local development

Compare village-development proposals

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-010DP30Community consultation

Resolve local objections before administrative determination

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-011DP30Field inspections

Schedule required inspections efficiently

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-012DP30Financial assistance

Reconcile approved assistance with disbursement evidence

Inputs and example

Approved 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FUNDING

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-013DP30Service inclusion

Identify underserved villages and eligible groups

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-014DP30Citizen complaints

Assign unresolved local complaints to accountable offices

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-015DP30Project monitoring

Verify local works against approved scope

Inputs and example

Approved 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-016DP30Public assets

Prioritize maintenance referrals for local public assets

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-017DP30Data reconciliation

Resolve contradictory household and land records

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-018DP30Office workload

Allocate staff to service desks with capacity shortages

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-019DP30Local reporting

Correct missing context in divisional statistical returns

Inputs and example

Indicator; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP30-020DP30Referral completion

Track cases through responsible institutions to documented outcomes

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S30, S38

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-001DP31Field reporting

Submit overdue required village reports

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-002DP31Community observations

Identify households needing consented follow-up or referral

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-003DP31Case corrections

Resolve incomplete or inconsistent village case reports

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-004DP31Asset locations

Verify missing or uncertain locations of community assets

Inputs and example

Measured 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-005DP31Disaster impacts

Prioritize rapid verification of local disaster impacts

Inputs and example

Event; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-006DP31Relief referrals

Prepare evidence for authorized relief decisions

Inputs and example

Household; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-007DP31Duplicate assistance

Flag possible repeated assistance for divisional review

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPEAT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS14, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-008DP31Household updates

Schedule verification of reported household changes

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-009DP31Certificate evidence

Check required evidence before referring certificate requests

Inputs and example

Request; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-010DP31Vulnerable residents

Refer unmet needs through approved support channels

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-011DP31Community complaints

Escalate unresolved local complaints within jurisdiction

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-012DP31Public warnings

Identify residents missing authorized emergency messages

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-013DP31Community meetings

Ensure relevant residents can participate in consultations

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-014DP31Local infrastructure

Refer damaged public assets to responsible maintainers

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-015DP31Land observations

Report land-use concerns without making ownership determinations

Inputs and example

Concern 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OVERLAY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, S16, LOCAL-SRS10, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-016DP31Field visits

Plan feasible household and site follow-up routes

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ROUTE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, LOCAL-SRS10, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-017DP31Programme follow-up

Track referrals to verified service outcomes

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-018DP31Record privacy

Check permitted use before sharing household information

Inputs and example

Fields; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-019DP31Boundary codes

Correct local records assigned to inconsistent geographic codes

Inputs and example

Record 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP31-020DP31Service feedback

Identify recurring local service problems from feedback

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COMPOSITION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S29, S38, S39

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-001DP32Land use

Coordinate support for underused member farmland

Inputs and example

Cultivable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-002DP32Support fairness

Review potentially overlapping assistance to members

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPEAT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS14, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-003DP32Irrigation requests

Prepare evidence-based seasonal water requests

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

WATER

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S69, DD-WATER, S78

Retained context sources

S68, S69, S50, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-004DP32Service coordination

Escalate overdue collective farming requests

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-005DP32Water rotations

Propose workable water rotations for member areas

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-006DP32Tail-end equity

Investigate unequal delivery against agreed allocations

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-007DP32Collective inputs

Plan joint input purchases against verified member demand

Inputs and example

Physical 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INVENTORY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-008DP32Collective marketing

Match aggregated produce with verified buyer requirements

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S33, S34, LOCAL-SRS15, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-009DP32Machinery sharing

Allocate shared machinery without conflicting reservations

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-010DP32Irrigation upkeep

Prioritize common tank and canal maintenance requests

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-011DP32Group finance

Reconcile organization receipts expenses and balances

Inputs and example

Opening 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-012DP32Membership

Resolve inconsistent or duplicate member records

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-013DP32Governance

Address missing meetings audits and required disclosures

Inputs and example

Rules; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-014DP32Training

Target member training to verified skill gaps

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-015DP32Drought plans

Compare collective responses to forecast water shortages

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-016DP32Crop-loss evidence

Coordinate verification of shared crop-damage reports

Inputs and example

Event; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-017DP32Storage

Compare collective storage and handling investments

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-018DP32Participation

Resolve member objections to collective plans

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-019DP32Member communication

Follow up members missing agreed information updates

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP32-020DP32Collective outcomes

Evaluate benefits and costs of group farming services

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S04, S50

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-001DP33Farm profitability

Choose crops using transparent enterprise gross margins

Inputs and example

Saleable 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

MARGIN

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S76

Retained context sources

S76, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-002DP33Irrigation planning

Plan irrigation needs for the proposed crop season

Inputs and example

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]; 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

WATER

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S69, DD-WATER, S78

Retained context sources

S68, S69, S50, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-003DP33Harvest losses

Identify handling stages causing verified crop losses

Inputs and example

Batch 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

LOSS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S57

Retained context sources

S57, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-004DP33Planting dates

Adjust planned planting against crop calendar and advice

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-005DP33Crop choice

Compare suitable crop and variety alternatives

Inputs and example

Soil; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-006DP33Input budgeting

Plan affordable crop inputs with actual cost assumptions

Inputs and example

Labour 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S76, LOCAL-SRS15, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-007DP33Cash needs

Identify seasonal cash shortages before commitments

Inputs and example

Cash 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-008DP33Soil advice

Seek reviewed nutrient advice using valid soil tests

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-009DP33Pest diagnosis

Decide when to request specialist pest or disease diagnosis

Inputs and example

Observed 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-010DP33Safe crop protection

Check proposed treatments against current authorized guidance

Inputs and example

Product; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, DD-PESTICIDES, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-011DP33Seed purchase

Select seed lots with verified suitability and quality evidence

Inputs and example

Variety; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-012DP33Labour planning

Schedule available labour around critical crop operations

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-013DP33Machinery choice

Compare hiring and ownership of farm machinery

Inputs and example

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 [%]; 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-014DP33Selling decisions

Compare buyer offers after costs and quality differences

Inputs and example

Buyer 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

PRICE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S31, S34, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-015DP33Buyer matching

Identify feasible buyers for available produce

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S33, S34, LOCAL-SRS15, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-016DP33Drought adaptation

Compare feasible water-saving and crop-adaptation options

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-017DP33Storage decisions

Compare immediate sale with safe storage alternatives

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-018DP33Farm investment

Appraise proposed farm improvements under realistic scenarios

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-019DP33Support applications

Prepare complete evidence for relevant farmer-support schemes

Inputs and example

Scheme 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP33-020DP33Farm recordkeeping

Identify missing records needed for reliable farm analysis

Inputs and example

Plot; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S03, S04, S31

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-001DP34Production economics

Target estate crop and seasonal cost drivers

Inputs and example

Labour 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S76, LOCAL-SRS15, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-002DP34Soil and water

Evaluate soil and water-management practice outcomes

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-003DP34Replanting areas

Prioritize blocks for replanting or rehabilitation

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-004DP34Worker services

Address gaps in verified worker-support coverage

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-005DP34Crop suitability

Compare crops and cultivars for estate conditions

Inputs and example

Soil; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SUITABILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S02, S63, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-006DP34Planting survival

Target maintenance to weak new-planting cohorts

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SURVIVAL

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-007DP34Erosion control

Prioritize conservation treatment in vulnerable estate blocks

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

EROSION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S80

Retained context sources

S48, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-008DP34Harvest scheduling

Plan harvesting around maturity weather and capacity

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-009DP34Pest management

Refer unusual plantation pest and disease patterns

Inputs and example

Reference 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ANOMALY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S10, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-010DP34Processing efficiency

Investigate poor conversion of harvest to saleable product

Inputs and example

Green-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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-011DP34Energy and water

Target resource-efficiency improvements in estate operations

Inputs and example

Saleable 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-012DP34Product quality

Investigate product lots failing applicable specifications

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-013DP34Climate resilience

Compare estate adaptation investments

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-014DP34Worker safety

Prioritize documented occupational hazards for competent review

Inputs and example

Task 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: DD-ILO

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-015DP34Water and housing

Identify estate communities with service deficits

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-016DP34Maintenance

Schedule critical estate and factory equipment maintenance

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-017DP34Traceability

Resolve breaks in estate product provenance

Inputs and example

Upstream 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-018DP34Carbon evidence

Review estate carbon-stock estimates and pool coverage

Inputs and example

Earlier 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

CARBON

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S79

Retained context sources

S49, S70, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-019DP34Community consultation

Resolve concerns around estate development proposals

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP34-020DP34Estate classifications

Reconcile inconsistent block crop and land-use records

Inputs and example

Block 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S13, S40, S41

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-001DP35Training and services

Identify worker groups missing agreed services

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-002DP35Issue follow-up

Escalate unresolved worker and community issues

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-003DP35Programme overlap

Review overlapping assistance without exposing private identities

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPEAT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS14, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-004DP35Verified outcomes

Identify programmes lacking baseline and follow-up evidence

Inputs and example

Programme 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-005DP35Drinking water

Refer documented water-quality concerns to qualified services

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-006DP35Sanitation

Prioritize community sanitation improvements

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-007DP35Housing safety

Refer unsafe housing observations for qualified assessment

Inputs and example

Building 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-008DP35Childcare access

Address gaps in access to appropriate childcare services

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-009DP35Health referrals

Follow up access to qualified health services

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-010DP35Skills development

Select training topics aligned with livelihood needs

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-011DP35Livelihood alternatives

Compare feasible supplementary livelihood options

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-012DP35Workplace concerns

Refer documented occupational safety concerns

Inputs and example

Task 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: DD-ILO

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-013DP35Service accessibility

Compare travel barriers to essential community services

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ROUTE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, LOCAL-SRS10, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-014DP35Disaster preparedness

Identify residents missing agreed preparedness arrangements

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-015DP35Participation

Ensure affected workers can respond to development proposals

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-016DP35Community facilities

Prioritize repair referrals for shared facilities

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-017DP35Support eligibility

Prepare evidence for authorized community-support decisions

Inputs and example

Scheme; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-018DP35Community funds

Reconcile approved group contributions and expenditure

Inputs and example

Opening 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-019DP35Communication

Improve delivery of agreed community information

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP35-020DP35Privacy and safeguarding

Determine safe sharing of sensitive community case information

Inputs and example

Purpose; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S13, S42, S47

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-001DP36Supply matching

Match available produce with compatible dated buyer demand

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S33, S34, LOCAL-SRS15, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-002DP36Procurement prices

Compare procurement offers for equivalent product grades

Inputs and example

Supplier 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

PRICE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S31, S34, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-003DP36Trading spreads

Investigate wholesale and retail spreads after costs

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

PRICE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S31, S34, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-004DP36Delivery commitments

Prioritize time-sensitive buyer orders

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-005DP36Supplier reliability

Review supplier delivery performance using accepted records

Inputs and example

Planned 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

VARIANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-006DP36Product acceptance

Refer received lots failing agreed quality specifications

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-007DP36Stock management

Plan replenishment without overcommitting perishable stock

Inputs and example

Physical 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INVENTORY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-008DP36Spoilage reduction

Identify handling and storage stages with verified losses

Inputs and example

Batch 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

LOSS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S57

Retained context sources

S57, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-009DP36Transport planning

Compare feasible collection and delivery routes

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ROUTE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S15, LOCAL-SRS10, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-010DP36Storage choice

Compare storage with immediate sale under price uncertainty

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-011DP36Trading cash flow

Identify cash gaps from buying and selling schedules

Inputs and example

Cash 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-012DP36Buyer payments

Follow up overdue customer payments within agreed terms

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-013DP36Customer dependence

Review exposure to a small number of buyers

Inputs and example

Compatible 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

CONCENTRATION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S83

Retained context sources

S33, S34, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-014DP36Supplier dependence

Compare sourcing alternatives where supply is concentrated

Inputs and example

Compatible 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

CONCENTRATION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S83

Retained context sources

S33, S34, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-015DP36Price variability

Adjust procurement exposure after reviewing price volatility

Inputs and example

Comparable 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

VOLATILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S84

Retained context sources

S31, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-016DP36Traceability

Resolve missing provenance for traded lots

Inputs and example

Upstream 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-017DP36Market expansion

Compare candidate markets against logistics and demand

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-018DP36Contract readiness

Check evidence before entering supply agreements

Inputs and example

Offer; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-019DP36Packaging choices

Compare packaging options for losses cost and buyer needs

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP36-020DP36Product catalogue

Correct inconsistent product grades and quantity units

Inputs and example

Source 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-001DP37Processing yield

Improve conversion of inputs into saleable output

Inputs and example

Input 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-002DP37Logistics costs

Investigate high shipment cost per tonne-kilometre

Inputs and example

Shipment 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S76, LOCAL-SRS15, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-003DP37Cold chain

Investigate shipments outside approved temperature conditions

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-004DP37Export performance

Review export unit values and destination performance

Inputs and example

Recorded 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-005DP37Raw materials

Match processing demand to compatible supplier lots

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S33, S34, LOCAL-SRS15, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-006DP37Capacity planning

Compare orders with usable processing capacity

Inputs and example

Demand 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CAPACITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-007DP37Production scheduling

Schedule batches around quality and delivery constraints

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-008DP37Quality assurance

Prioritize product nonconformities for technical investigation

Inputs and example

Parameter 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUALITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S20, S56, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-009DP37Traceability and recall

Identify affected lots when a source defect is confirmed

Inputs and example

Upstream 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-010DP37Food loss

Select loss-reduction actions at processing bottlenecks

Inputs and example

Batch 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

LOSS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S57

Retained context sources

S57, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-011DP37Energy efficiency

Target processes with high energy per saleable unit

Inputs and example

Energy 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

YIELD

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S67, S57, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-012DP37Water efficiency

Compare process water use and reuse alternatives

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-013DP37Equipment reliability

Prioritize critical equipment repairs and preventive work

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-014DP37Inventory expiry

Avoid using expired or quarantined materials

Inputs and example

Physical 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INVENTORY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-015DP37Packaging compliance

Check packaging against destination and buyer requirements

Inputs and example

Product; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-016DP37Working capital

Identify cash shortfalls across purchase production and payment cycles

Inputs and example

Cash 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-017DP37Expansion appraisal

Compare equipment and facility expansion investments

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-018DP37Export documentation

Refer complete shipment documentation for required clearance

Inputs and example

Shipment; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-019DP37Workforce capability

Target technical training to process-quality and safety gaps

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP37-020DP37Process records

Correct missing units versions and batch references

Inputs and example

Process 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S31, S33, S34

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-001DP38Investment appraisal

Select investments for detailed cash-flow appraisal

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-002DP38Repayment capacity

Assess debt-service coverage under lender-defined scenarios

Inputs and example

Cash 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

DEBT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S43, LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-003DP38Co-financing

Identify gaps between required finance and confirmed commitments

Inputs and example

Approved 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FUNDING

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-004DP38Sensitivity

Compare investment viability under reviewed stress assumptions

Inputs and example

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 [%]

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

Open decision · Institution review

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

FINANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S81

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-005DP38Climate risk

Refer climate-exposed financing cases for specialist assessment

Inputs and example

Asset 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-006DP38Environmental and social risk

Evaluate documented environmental and social controls

Inputs and example

Project 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-007DP38Green taxonomy

Refer proposed green-finance classifications for verification

Inputs and example

Activity; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S73, S43, S44

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-008DP38Credit evidence

Identify missing or contradictory borrower evidence

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-009DP38Seasonal lending

Compare repayment schedules with agricultural cash generation

Inputs and example

Cash 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

DEBT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S43, LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-010DP38Portfolio concentration

Review sector geography and counterparty exposure concentration

Inputs and example

Outstanding 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

CONCENTRATION

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S83

Retained context sources

S33, S34, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-011DP38Arrears management

Prioritize overdue cases for authorized engagement

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-012DP38Collateral review

Refer collateral evidence gaps to qualified valuers and legal teams

Inputs and example

Asset; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-013DP38Disbursement conditions

Verify prerequisites before authorized disbursement decisions

Inputs and example

Facility 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-014DP38Impact claims

Review evidence supporting financed environmental and social outcomes

Inputs and example

Intervention 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-015DP38Application processing

Resolve financing applications stalled at required review stages

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-016DP38Guarantee programmes

Refer guarantee requests against approved scheme criteria

Inputs and example

Scheme 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-017DP38Financial inclusion

Identify gaps in access to appropriate financing services

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-018DP38Liquidity planning

Compare expected funding inflows with committed disbursements

Inputs and example

Cash 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-019DP38Adaptation finance

Compare financing alternatives for resilient farm and enterprise investments

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP38-020DP38Financial privacy

Determine permitted use and sharing of client data

Inputs and example

Purpose; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S43, S44, S73

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-001DP39Verification schedule

Which field checks are due?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SCHEDULE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-002DP39Service delivery

How much agreed work passed the check?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

PES

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S60, S61, PES-FAO

Retained context sources

S60, S61, LOCAL-SRS15, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-003DP39Service accounting

What was checked, proposed and paid?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCOUNT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S58, PES-FAO

Retained context sources

S58, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-004DP39Verification cost

How much does a field check cost?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COST

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

S76, LOCAL-SRS15, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-005DP39Scheme readiness

Is the scheme ready to start?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-006DP39Provider eligibility

Can this group join the scheme?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-007DP39Additionality

Did the scheme add an environmental improvement?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92, PES-FAO

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-008DP39Leakage

Did land clearing move outside the agreement area?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92, PES-FAO

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-009DP39Permanence

Could the agreed work be lost or damaged?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-010DP39Contract design

Which service agreement is practical?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-011DP39Payment proposals

What payment can we propose?

Inputs and example

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]

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

PES

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S60, S61, PES-FAO

Retained context sources

S60, S61, LOCAL-SRS15, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-012DP39Benefit sharing

How would the payment be shared?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-013DP39Double counting

Is the same work being claimed twice?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPEAT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS14, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-014DP39Monitoring design

How should we measure the work and its benefits?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-015DP39Funding sustainability

Is there enough money for the full agreement?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FUNDING

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-016DP39Provider safeguards

Could participation harm a household or its rights?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-017DP39Grievances and appeals

Which complaints need a response?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-018DP39Independent review

Is the checker independent?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-019DP39Renewal decisions

Should the agreement continue, change or close?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP39-020DP39Scheme records

Do the service name, unit and agreement match?

Inputs and example

Agreement 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: PES-FAO

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S13, S58, S60

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-001DP40Dataset selection

Select datasets suitable for spatial and temporal comparison

Inputs and example

Coverage; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-002DP40Intervention research

Compare validated soil and forest outcomes across interventions

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-003DP40Sampling limitations

Identify biodiversity comparisons limited by survey design

Inputs and example

Observed 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BIODIVERSITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: DD-GBIF

Retained context sources

S45, S46, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-004DP40Expert review

Prioritize scientific estimates awaiting independent assessment

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-005DP40Research questions

Select questions aligned with institutional evidence gaps

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-006DP40Ethics and permissions

Check research approvals before collecting restricted evidence

Inputs and example

Protocol; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-007DP40Sampling design

Compare designs for adequate precision and representation

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-008DP40Model validation

Require independent evidence before applying predictive models

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-009DP40Data cleaning

Resolve contradictory measurements without altering originals

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MISMATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-010DP40Reproducibility

Reproduce reported results from exact evidence versions

Inputs and example

Earlier/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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPRODUCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S46, LOCAL-SRS19, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-011DP40Research collaboration

Match institutional research needs with qualified expertise

Inputs and example

Documented 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S33, S34, LOCAL-SRS15, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-012DP40Causal interpretation

Determine whether evidence supports causal claims

Inputs and example

Study 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-013DP40Uncertainty priorities

Choose additional measurements that reduce material uncertainty

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-014DP40Research funding

Compare study proposals under budget and evidence constraints

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-015DP40Data publication

Review consent rights and sensitivity before releasing data

Inputs and example

Dataset; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-016DP40Longitudinal studies

Prevent loss of critical follow-up observations

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SURVIVAL

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-017DP40Laboratory quality

Verify analytical controls supporting research measurements

Inputs and example

Sample 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

INSPECT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS07, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-018DP40Knowledge transfer

Prepare evidence packages for specific institutional decisions

Inputs and example

Target 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-019DP40Research outcomes

Evaluate use and effects of research outputs

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP40-020DP40Scientific vocabulary

Resolve inconsistent scientific variables and taxonomic labels

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CLASSIFY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS05, S14, S22, S45

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-001DP41Livelihood reach

Target communities missing intended livelihood support

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-002DP41Community feedback

Prioritize unresolved feedback and complaints

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-003DP41Training follow-up

Verify practical outcomes after community training

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

FLOW

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-004DP41Service delays

Escalate locations with prolonged community-service delays

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

QUEUE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS13, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-005DP41Needs assessment

Compare community priorities using inclusive evidence

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-006DP41Participation

Resolve barriers to meaningful community participation

Inputs and example

Distinct 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-007DP41Beneficiary selection

Prepare complete evidence for authorized programme selection

Inputs and example

Programme 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ELIGIBILITY

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, LOCAL-SRS21, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-008DP41Support overlap

Coordinate complementary assistance and review potential duplication

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

REPEAT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS14, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-009DP41Safeguarding referrals

Route sensitive concerns through authorized confidential channels

Inputs and example

Confidential 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

ACCESS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S17, LOCAL-SRS03, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-010DP41Climate adaptation

Compare community-led adaptation alternatives

Inputs and example

Option 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

OPTIONS

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-011DP41Community assets

Prioritize repairs to shared livelihood and water assets

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MAINTENANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S64, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-012DP41Volunteer deployment

Match volunteer capacity to approved community tasks

Inputs and example

Documented 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S33, S34, LOCAL-SRS15, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-013DP41Programme finance

Reconcile community grants and verified expenditure

Inputs and example

Opening 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

BALANCE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-014DP41Market access

Identify feasible market links for community enterprises

Inputs and example

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

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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

MATCH

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S33, S34, LOCAL-SRS15, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-015DP41Water and sanitation

Target communities lacking reliable safe service access

Inputs and example

Required 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

COVERAGE

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-016DP41Disaster preparedness

Address gaps in local warning and evacuation arrangements

Inputs and example

Official 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

RISK

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S56, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-017DP41Programme retention

Follow up participants lost from continuing support programmes

Inputs and example

Original 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

SURVIVAL

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

LOCAL-SRS11, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-018DP41Outcome evaluation

Evaluate whether programmes produced sustained community benefits

Inputs and example

Treatment 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

Open decision · Institution review

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

IMPACT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: S92

Retained context sources

S74, S59, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-019DP41Partner coordination

Resolve unclear ownership of cross-organization actions

Inputs and example

Action 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

CONSENT

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S47, LOCAL-SRS12, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

DEC-DP41-020DP41Community evidence

Improve completeness of consented community monitoring records

Inputs and example

Record; 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

Open decision · Institution review

Candidate; institutional release acceptance pending

Validation required

Validation required

METADATA

Implementation: prototype

Method source: Project proposed rule

Retained context sources

S16, S17, LOCAL-SRS05, S13, S47, S56

Context alone does not validate the formula.

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.

Download method references

139 method references

MethodFormula or procedureSources 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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: VARIANCE, FORECAST

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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

FAO 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

UNCCD 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 source

Source note and original link

UNCCD 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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: CHANGE, BALANCE

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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Normals 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Parameter 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Official 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Original 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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: COST, PES

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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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, FUNDING

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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Source note and original link

Read 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 source

Supporting official reference

Original source link retained

S02 NRMC functions

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S03 Department of Agriculture publications and regulations

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S04 Agrarian Development services

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S05 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 source

S06 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 source

Original source link retained

S07 Mahaweli Water Management Secretariat

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S08 Mahaweli land-use planning

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S09 Forest Conservation functions

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S10 Department of Meteorology products

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S11 Agro-climatology and climate change division

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S12 Export Agriculture research division

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S13 GCF FP124 project and documents

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S14 CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S15 Survey Department responsibilities

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S16 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 source

S17 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 source

S18 Disaster Management Centre profile

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S19 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 source

S20 Environmental Protection License scheme

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S21 Natural resources management and monitoring

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S22 Wildlife research permissions

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S23 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 source

Original source link retained

S24 Census and Statistics survey catalogue

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S25 Water Resources Board hydrogeology

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S26 Water Resources Board services

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S27 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 source

S28 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 source

Original source link retained

S29 State land administration services

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S30 State Land Information Management System

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S31 HARTI weekly commodity bulletins

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S32 HARTI annual report 2024

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S33 EDB export marketing services

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S34 EDB trade information

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S35 National Enterprise Development Authority

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S36 IDB technical services

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S37 IDB industrial estates

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S38 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 source

S39 Public Administration Circular 23/2021

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S40 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 source

S41 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 source

S42 Plantation Human Development Trust

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S43 CBSL sustainable finance

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S44 Sri Lanka Green Finance Taxonomy

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S45 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 source

Original source link retained

S46 GBIF biological survey publishing guide

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S47 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 source

S48 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 source

S49 IPCC 2019 Refinement

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S50 FAO crop evapotranspiration 56

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S51 Cost of production budgeting

Context requiring follow up

Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S52 WMO SPI user guide record

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S53 UDA published zoning map

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S54 Seed Certification Service

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S55 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 source

S56 WHO water safety planning

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S57 FAO food loss measurement

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S58 UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S59 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 source

S60 FAO PES and food security

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S61 FAO designing PES

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S62 NRMC Soil Conservation Division

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S63 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 source

S64 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 source

S65 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 source

S66 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 source

S67 DCS Statistical Abstract 2024: agriculture methodology

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S68 FAO 56: Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S69 FAO 56: crop evapotranspiration

Published method

FAO 56 Chapter 5 equation 56; ETc = Kc × ETo

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S70 IPCC 2019 Refinement: AFOLU volume

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

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

Open source

S72 IWA non-revenue water management

Published definition

Opening NRW definition; detailed water audit protocol not supplied

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S73 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 source

S74 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 source

S75 Environment Canada: root mean squared error

Published method

What is Root Mean Square Error; displayed formula

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S76 FAO enterprise and activity budgeting

Published method

Section 4.3.8 Gross margin; section 4.7 Parametric budgeting

Retrieved text for review

Open source

S77 DCS paddy statistics and revision notice

Context or data source; not automatic formula support

Full method locator not established

Retrieved text for review

Open source

LOCAL-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 source

SRS 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 source

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

Open source

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

Open source

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

Open source

S81 FAO Guidelines for financial economic environmental and social information

Published method

Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return subsections

Method text checked

Open source

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

Open source

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

Open source

S84 NIST Coefficient of Variation

Published definition

Description of sample CV and ratio scale restriction

Definition checked

Open source

S85 Turf area API

Software method

Version 7.2.0 area; square metres

Documentation checked

Open source

S86 Turf distance API

Software method

Version 7.2.0 distance; Haversine method

Documentation checked

Open source

S87 Turf length API

Software method

Version 7.2.0 length; selected units

Documentation checked

Open source

S88 Turf buffer API

Software method

Version 7.2.0 buffer; radius and steps

Documentation checked

Open source

S89 Turf intersect API

Software method

Version 7.2.0 intersect; polygon intersection

Documentation checked

Open source

S90 Turf point in polygon API

Software method

Version 7.2.0 booleanPointInPolygon; boundary option

Documentation checked

Open source

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

Open source

S92 World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition

Published method

Chapter 7 Difference in Differences

Method text checked

Open source

NF-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 source

NF-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 source

NF-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 source

NF-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 source

Supporting official reference

Original source link retained

NF-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 source

NF-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 source

NF-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 source

NF-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 source

NF-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 source

Original source link retained

NF-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 source

NF-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 source

Original source link retained

NF-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 source

Supporting official reference

Original source link retained

NF-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 source

NF-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 source

NF-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 source

NF-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 source

Domain 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 source

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.

Open source

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.

Open source

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.

Open source

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.

Open source

DD-ILO ILO controlling occupational risks

Institution publication. Controlling risks; hierarchy of controls. Evidence-led control review; no universal numeric risk score or clearance.

Open source

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.

Open source

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.

Open source

PES-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 source

USLE factor product

Verified published formula · Government publication

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service · A Guide for Predicting Sheet and Rill Erosion on Forest Land

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

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Farm Management for Asia A Systems Approach

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

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Guidelines for defining financial economic environmental and social information

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

Japan Meteorological Agency · Outline of Operational Numerical Weather Prediction Appendix A Verification Indices 2024

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

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56 Crop Evapotranspiration

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.