Natural Resources Management Centre

Tell us what to change or add.

Your name (optional)Your roleReview date

Continue a saved review

1. Check a decision

Open a decision below. Check the area, period, inputs, result and proposed next step.

2. Try the inputs

Use Example input to change a sample. Use Source input to check the fields and source details. The land-use change decision has its own comparison views.

Record your corrections below, then download your answers or print them.

3. Check each decision

1. Select land units requiring erosion-control assessment 2. Compare contouring mulching and cover-crop alternatives 3. Allocate survey effort across reviewed erosion classes 4. Select sites for comparable soil-carbon monitoring 5. Refer nutrient and acidity limitations for agronomic advice 6. Choose what to handle first: investigations of salinity-affected land 7. Select plots needing compaction management assessment 8. Compare practices to improve infiltration and runoff control 9. Shortlist suitable farm water-harvesting locations 10. Select improvements for low water productivity 11. Choose what to handle first: connected watershed conservation interventions 12. Follow up incomplete conservation works 13. Issue evidence packages for local agricultural advisories 14. Repair incomplete soil and weather observation coverage 15. Review limiting soil and climate factors for proposed crops 16. Compare conservation practice outcomes 17. Compare conservation cost per verified treated hectare 18. Refer suspect agricultural soil samples for investigation 19. Target conservation guidance where adoption is low 20. Review reproducibility of soil and land assessments

1. Select land units requiring erosion-control assessmentDEC-DP02-001 · Erosion · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select land units requiring erosion-control assessment.

Verified published formula · USLE factor product

Method. R × K × LS × C × P, using a mutually consistent SI factor set.

Next step. Review evidence. Compare feasible treatments, select sites for expert appraisal, or commission missing measurements.

Inputs, example and sources

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service · A Guide for Predicting Sheet and Rill Erosion on Forest Land
Government publication · 1980 technical publication SA-TP 11; Universal Soil Loss Equation, printed page 2; metric conversion appendix, printed page 40

The historical source verifies the factor product. Local factor choice and suitability still need confirmation; this is not a full RUSLE2 implementation.

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. 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]

Other required evidence. Land unit; erosivity; erodibility; slope factors; cover; support practices.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — erosion · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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

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.

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Measured soil/land condition and treatment performance, with uncertainty.

USDA Forest Service A guide for predicting sheet and rill erosion on forest land — Government publication. USDA guide, USLE factor definition and validation section. Published USLE factor product and sheet/rill limits; local factor selection is separate.
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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

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

2. Compare contouring mulching and cover-crop alternativesDEC-DP02-002 · Conservation treatments · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare contouring mulching and cover-crop alternatives.

Validation required

Method. Budget minus option cost. Compare benefits, adverse effects and mandatory constraints separately; no weighted score or automatic best option.

Next step. Compare feasible trade-offs. Choose a feasible alternative with rationale and conditions, commission evidence, or defer.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Option cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects

Other required evidence. Treatment options; erosion-model inputs; implementation cost; maintenance; site constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Contour grass strips · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Option cost	1,500,000	LKR
Available budget	1,800,000	LKR
Mandatory constraints	Met
Expected benefit and its evidence	Compare contouring mulching and cover-crop alternatives; Treatment options and erosion-model inputs evidence needed
Resource needs and adverse effects	Sample water, labour, access and safeguard trade-offs
Budget remaining after option	300,000	LKR

Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved.

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Verified benefits, costs and adverse effects versus the agreed baseline.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

3. Allocate survey effort across reviewed erosion classesDEC-DP02-003 · Erosion classes · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Allocate survey effort across reviewed erosion classes.

Validation required

Method. Category share = 100 × category amount / total compatible category amounts. HHI = sum of squared fractional shares, displayed on a 0–1 scale.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate material differences and redirect planning or field verification where justified.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Mapped area in the stated erosion class [ha]; Area with accepted observations [ha]; Native class/variety and definition edition

Other required evidence. Erosion class; mapped hectares; confidence; survey coverage; class definitions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Very low assessed erosion · Laggala Pallegama reporting frame

Input or result	Value	Unit
Mapped area in the stated erosion class	120	ha
Area with accepted observations	72	ha
Native class/variety and definition edition	Sample classA
Class area	120	ha
Share of selected mapped area	4.762	%
Class observation coverage	60	%

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.

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Change in the approved composition indicator with coverage disclosed.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

4. Select sites for comparable soil-carbon monitoringDEC-DP02-004 · Soil carbon · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select sites for comparable soil-carbon monitoring.

Verified published formula · Soil-carbon stock with volume correction

Method. (Organic carbon% /100) × bulk density × depth ×10000 × (1−coarse% /100). Confirm that the density and coarse-fragment conventions are mutually consistent.

Next step. Review evidence. Select further sampling or land-management appraisal based on valid stock comparisons.

Inputs, example and sources

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change · Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF
Institution publication · 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.

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Soil organic carbon [%]; Fine-earth bulk-density basis [t/m³]; Sample depth [m]; Coarse-fragment volume fraction [%]; Sampling depth, design and density convention

Other required evidence. Soil organic carbon fraction; bulk density; depth metres; coarse fragments; sample date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — soil carbon · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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

A carbon concentration is not a stock. Change comparisons require consistent depth/mass, sampling, density convention and uncertainty review.

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Comparable measured soil-carbon stock and uncertainty.

IPCC 2006 Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 2 — Institution publication. Volume4 chapter2 sections2.2 and2.3.3. Published carbon-stock/change and soil-carbon framework; input conventions and local applicability require review.
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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

5. Refer nutrient and acidity limitations for agronomic adviceDEC-DP02-005 · Soil fertility · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer nutrient and acidity limitations for agronomic advice.

Validation required

Method. Compare the measured value only with matching parameter, unit, use and averaging period. Retain limit source/version and censored-result status.

Next step. Within example comparison bounds. Refer a confirmed nonconformance for authorized response, resample, or investigate the method.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Sample ID; crop; pH; nutrient results; lab method; reviewed crop limits.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — soil fertility · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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

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.

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Follow-up compliance, exposure/service condition and corrective closure.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

6. Choose what to handle first: investigations of salinity-affected landDEC-DP02-006 · Salinity · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize investigations of salinity-affected land.

Validation required

Method. Compare the measured value only with matching parameter, unit, use and averaging period. Retain limit source/version and censored-result status.

Next step. Outside example comparison bounds. Refer a confirmed nonconformance for authorized response, resample, or investigate the method.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Electrical conductivity; sampling depth; irrigation-water quality; soil location; crop limits.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — salinity · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Measured value	2.8	dS/m

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.

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Follow-up compliance, exposure/service condition and corrective closure.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

7. Select plots needing compaction management assessmentDEC-DP02-007 · Soil compaction · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select plots needing compaction management assessment.

Validation required

Method. Compare the measured value only with matching parameter, unit, use and averaging period. Retain limit source/version and censored-result status.

Next step. Outside example comparison bounds. Refer a confirmed nonconformance for authorized response, resample, or investigate the method.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Bulk density; penetration resistance; soil moisture; depth; crop root requirements.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — soil compaction · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Measured value	1.65	g/cm³

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.

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Follow-up compliance, exposure/service condition and corrective closure.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

8. Compare practices to improve infiltration and runoff controlDEC-DP02-008 · Infiltration · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare practices to improve infiltration and runoff control.

Validation required

Method. Budget minus option cost. Compare benefits, adverse effects and mandatory constraints separately; no weighted score or automatic best option.

Next step. Compare feasible trade-offs. Choose a feasible alternative with rationale and conditions, commission evidence, or defer.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Option cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects

Other required evidence. Infiltration tests; rainfall intensity; slope; treatment costs; runoff observations.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Contour grass strips · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Option cost	1,500,000	LKR
Available budget	1,800,000	LKR
Mandatory constraints	Met
Expected benefit and its evidence	Compare practices to improve infiltration and runoff control; Infiltration tests and rainfall intensity evidence needed
Resource needs and adverse effects	Sample water, labour, access and safeguard trade-offs
Budget remaining after option	300,000	LKR

Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved.

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Verified benefits, costs and adverse effects versus the agreed baseline.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

9. Shortlist suitable farm water-harvesting locationsDEC-DP02-009 · Water harvesting · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Shortlist suitable farm water-harvesting locations.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. Shortlist technically feasible alternatives, reject exclusions, or request site evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Catchment geometry; rainfall; storage sites; soil permeability; access; constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — water harvesting · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Field-verified limiting factors and observed performance.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

10. Select improvements for low water productivityDEC-DP02-010 · On-farm irrigation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select improvements for low water productivity.

Validation required

Method. Saleable crop output / Matching irrigation water input, for the same product, process and period.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate low productivity, compare practices, or improve the input/output measurements.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Saleable crop output [kg]; Matching irrigation water input [m³]

Other required evidence. Accepted crop output kg; irrigation volume cubic metres; cultivated hectares; season.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — on-farm irrigation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Saleable crop output	19,780	kg
Matching irrigation water input	7,200	m³
Crop water productivity	2.747	kg/m³

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Output per relevant input alongside quality and resource impacts.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

11. Choose what to handle first: connected watershed conservation interventionsDEC-DP02-011 · Watershed treatments · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize connected watershed conservation interventions.

Validation required

Method. Budget minus option cost. Compare benefits, adverse effects and mandatory constraints separately; no weighted score or automatic best option.

Next step. Compare feasible trade-offs. Choose a feasible alternative with rationale and conditions, commission evidence, or defer.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Option cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects

Other required evidence. Catchment units; erosion risk; upstream treatments; downstream assets; costs.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Contour grass strips · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Option cost	1,500,000	LKR
Available budget	1,800,000	LKR
Mandatory constraints	Met
Expected benefit and its evidence	Prioritize connected watershed conservation interventions; Catchment units and erosion risk evidence needed
Resource needs and adverse effects	Sample water, labour, access and safeguard trade-offs
Budget remaining after option	300,000	LKR

Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved.

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Verified benefits, costs and adverse effects versus the agreed baseline.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

12. Follow up incomplete conservation worksDEC-DP02-012 · Conservation inspection · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Follow up incomplete conservation works.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. Request correction, refer mandatory failures, or accept the inspected item with conditions.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Work ID; approved design; inspection items; photographs; completion evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — conservation inspection · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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

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

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Evidence-backed corrective closure and recurring nonconformances.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

13. Issue evidence packages for local agricultural advisoriesDEC-DP02-013 · Agroclimate advice · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Issue evidence packages for local agricultural advisories.

Validation required

Method. Later/comparison value minus Comparable reference value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Comparable reference value when the earlier value is positive.

Next step. Review evidence. Verify the observation, refer a confirmed exception, or retain it with explanation.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Comparable reference value [mm]; Later/comparison value [mm]

Other required evidence. Station observations; crop stage; forecast issue time; forecast validity; location.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — agroclimate advice · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Comparable reference value	100	mm
Later/comparison value	90	mm
Difference	-10	mm
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Validated exceptions, response time and resulting outcome.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

14. Repair incomplete soil and weather observation coverageDEC-DP02-014 · Monitoring network · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Repair incomplete soil and weather observation coverage.

Validation required

Method. Completeness = 100 × valid / expected. Age = assessment date − latest valid observation; compare with the explicitly supplied interval.

Next step. Check overdue observation. Repair missed observations, contact the owner, or suspend stale evidence from current decisions.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Expected observations in the window [observations]; Distinct valid observations [observations]; Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval [days]

Other required evidence. Monitoring sites; expected observations; valid observations; outages; latest dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — monitoring network · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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

A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness.

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Valid observations received on time and recurring gaps.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

15. Review limiting soil and climate factors for proposed cropsDEC-DP02-015 · Crop suitability · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review limiting soil and climate factors for proposed crops.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. Shortlist technically feasible alternatives, reject exclusions, or request site evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Soil depth; texture; slope; rainfall; temperature; crop requirements; irrigation.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — crop suitability · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Field-verified limiting factors and observed performance.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

16. Compare conservation practice outcomesDEC-DP02-016 · Demonstration trials · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Evaluate conservation practice outcomes.

Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic

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

Next step. Supply study-design evidence. Continue, adapt, expand or stop a programme based on defensible outcome evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Trial assignment; baseline runoff; follow-up runoff; comparison plots; rainfall.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — demonstration trials · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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

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

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Verified outcomes, costs, distributional effects and evidence strength.

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

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

17. Compare conservation cost per verified treated hectareDEC-DP02-017 · Conservation economics · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare conservation cost per verified treated hectare.

Validation required

Method. Sum non-overlapping costs, then divide by the matching verified quantity for the same currency and accounting period.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate cost drivers, compare suppliers/practices, or revise the budget proposal.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Labour cost [LKR]; Material/input cost [LKR]; Other non-overlapping cost [LKR]; Verified matching hectares [ha]

Other required evidence. Treatment costs LKR; verified treated hectares; establishment date; maintenance cost.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — conservation economics · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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

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

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Actual comparable unit cost and service/output quality.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

18. Refer suspect agricultural soil samples for investigationDEC-DP02-018 · Soil contamination · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer suspect agricultural soil samples for investigation.

Validation required

Method. Compare the measured value only with matching parameter, unit, use and averaging period. Retain limit source/version and censored-result status.

Next step. Outside example comparison bounds. Refer a confirmed nonconformance for authorized response, resample, or investigate the method.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Contaminant result; sampling location; lab method; applicable land-use limit; custody.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — soil contamination · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Measured value	12	mg/kg

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.

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Follow-up compliance, exposure/service condition and corrective closure.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

19. Target conservation guidance where adoption is lowDEC-DP02-019 · Technical dissemination · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Target conservation guidance where adoption is low.

Validation required

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

Next step. Review evidence. Select eligible underserved units for outreach, investigate missing coverage, or revise the verified frame.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Required eligible frame [farms]; Distinct members of that frame covered [farms]; Frame members with unknown coverage [farms]

Other required evidence. Eligible farms; extension visits; verified adoption; practice type; reporting period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — technical dissemination · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Required eligible frame	100	farms
Distinct members of that frame covered	65	farms
Frame members with unknown coverage	5	farms
Verified coverage	65	%
Known uncovered	30	farms
Unknown coverage	5	farms

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

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Verified eligible units receiving service and remaining unmet need.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

20. Review reproducibility of soil and land assessmentsDEC-DP02-020 · Model assurance · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Review reproducibility of soil and land assessments.

Validation required

Method. 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.

Next step. Investigate reproduction difference. Accept reproducible evidence for review, investigate differences, or withhold an unsupported result.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Input hashes; factor sources; model version; parameters; independent result; tolerance.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — model assurance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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	%

Proposed checking role. Soil scientist and land-resource specialist.

After the action. Independent reproduction within the approved tolerance.

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.

Institution and data context

NRMC functions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
USDA RUSLE2 overview — Government publication. Water Erosion RUSLE2: overview and official program and database. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

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

4. Existing data forms for your institution

Check which existing source fields can supply the decision inputs.

Hydro Meteorological Stations · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 678a3e2dcda3b2df

Field	Unit	Required
Station Name	Confirm if needed	No
River Basin	Confirm if needed	No
Quadrant	Confirm if needed	No
X_Meter	Confirm if needed	No
Y_Meter	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No

Agro Meteorological Stations · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 4404e8d7fb7938f5

Field	Unit	Required
Station ID	Confirm if needed	No
Station Name	Confirm if needed	No
Station Code	Confirm if needed	No
Latitude	Confirm if needed	No
Longitude	Confirm if needed	No
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
qualifier	Confirm if needed	No
elevation	Confirm if needed	No

Rainguage Stations · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 34f3d59c2619b006

Field	Unit	Required
Serial Number	Confirm if needed	No
Station Name	Confirm if needed	No
District	Confirm if needed	No
Latitude	Confirm if needed	No
Longitude	Confirm if needed	No
Begin Date	Confirm if needed	No
End Date	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
qualifier	Confirm if needed	No
elevation	Confirm if needed	No

Rainfall · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 1d5963784380e5d7

Field	Unit	Required
stationid	Confirm if needed	No
date	Confirm if needed	No
rainfall_mm	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Synoptic Stations · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: c7953153a5200702

Field	Unit	Required
Serial Number	Confirm if needed	No
Station Name	Confirm if needed	No
District	Confirm if needed	No
Latitude	Confirm if needed	No
Longitude	Confirm if needed	No
Begin Date	Confirm if needed	No
End Date	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
qualifier	Confirm if needed	No
elevation	Confirm if needed	No

Climate Zones · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 2fd8102b7732d899

Field	Unit	Required
Zone_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Climate_Classification	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
AGCODE	Confirm if needed	No
AGNAME	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter	Confirm if needed	No
Terrain	Confirm if needed	No
AGRO_Zone	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Hydro Zones · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 8645ce85db37fa03

Field	Unit	Required
Zone ID	Confirm if needed	No
Zone Area	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter	Confirm if needed	No
Hydro_Type	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Irrigation Offices · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: b5701ed646f0f063

Field	Unit	Required
name	Confirm if needed	No
category	Confirm if needed	No
district_n	Confirm if needed	No

AgroEcological Zones Point · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: cc316b77dd9398f9

Field	Unit	Required
fid_1	Confirm if needed	No
left	Confirm if needed	No
bottom	Confirm if needed	No
right	Confirm if needed	No
top	Confirm if needed	No
x	Confirm if needed	No
y	Confirm if needed	No
fid_2	Confirm if needed	No
join_count	Confirm if needed	No
target_fid	Confirm if needed	No
id	Confirm if needed	No
gridcode	Confirm if needed	No
final_id	Confirm if needed	No
zone	Confirm if needed	No
climatic_z	Confirm if needed	No
agro_eco_z	Confirm if needed	No
agro_eco_r	Confirm if needed	No
terrain	Confirm if needed	No
major_soil	Confirm if needed	No
land_use	Confirm if needed	No
anualrfmm	Confirm if needed	No

ASC Locations · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: a64b0a6754afd4ed

Field	Unit	Required
ASC Number	Confirm if needed	No
ASC Name	Confirm if needed	No
XCOORD	Confirm if needed	No
YCOORD	Confirm if needed	No
Location Code	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No

Agro Ecological Zones · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: 592c3b578787edcd

Field	Unit	Required
Zone	Confirm if needed	No
Climatic_Zone	Confirm if needed	No
Agro_Eco_Zone	Confirm if needed	No
Agro_Eco_R	Confirm if needed	No
Final_ID	Confirm if needed	No
Terrain	Confirm if needed	No
Major_Soil	Confirm if needed	No
Land_Use	Confirm if needed	No
AnualRFmm	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Irrigation Schemes · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: 648a6f28a711dfa9

Field	Unit	Required
System Name	Confirm if needed	No
Systems	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
ID_Systems	Confirm if needed	No
MASL_System	Confirm if needed	No
DSD_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Irrigation Lands · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: e877698582fc591c

Field	Unit	Required
Landuse Type	Confirm if needed	No
Landuse Classification (CropType)	Confirm if needed	No
Creation Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Crops Suitability · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: 54fb1fe96af4f04c

Field	Unit	Required
Province Name	Confirm if needed	No
Province Code	Confirm if needed	No
District Name	Confirm if needed	No
District Code	Confirm if needed	No
DS Division Name	Confirm if needed	No
DS Division Code	Confirm if needed	No
GND Name	Confirm if needed	No
GND Number	Confirm if needed	No
MC UC PS Name	Confirm if needed	No
MC UC PS Code	Confirm if needed	No
Polling Division Name	Confirm if needed	No
Polling Division Code	Confirm if needed	No
id	Confirm if needed	No
Area Hectare	Confirm if needed	No
ASC Name	Confirm if needed	No
Area Sq Km	Confirm if needed	No
Square Km	Confirm if needed	No
Crop Type	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Soil Groups Points · Soil & Land Management

Existing form reference: 41336eee89f85706

Field	Unit	Required
name	Confirm if needed	No

Soil · Soil & Land Management

Existing form reference: b7d6f23ee128263f

Field	Unit	Required
Soil_Classification_1	Confirm if needed	No
Soil_Classification_1	Confirm if needed	No
Soil_Classification_1	Confirm if needed	No
Zone	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter	Confirm if needed	No
SL SOIL	Confirm if needed	No
SL SOIL ID	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
SOIL TYPE	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Soil Groups · Soil & Land Management

Existing form reference: ce03929a51b9da64

Field	Unit	Required
name	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Soil Conservation Area · Soil & Land Management

Existing form reference: b4d5a0c029f904d6

Field	Unit	Required
ID	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Soil Erosion · Soil & Land Management

Existing form reference: b8bbd59e75e437b9

Field	Unit	Required
Erosion Site ID	Confirm if needed	No
Erosion Rate	Confirm if needed	No
Latitude_KM	Confirm if needed	No
Longitude_KM	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No

Disaster Exposure · Soil & Land Management

Existing form reference: 3c6e0cfb0e978318

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

Geomorphology · Soil & Land Management

Existing form reference: 28a2a5925250def7

Field	Unit	Required

Landslide · Soil & Land Management

Existing form reference: ea62ecace985e67d

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

Soil type · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 1d04dae39fa034b0

Field	Unit	Required

Soil sub type · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 81565d03d3eabccd

Field	Unit	Required

5. Documents and images

Your institution has its own document and image library. Use the same library for reports, photos and other evidence.

Open this screen for Natural Resources Management Centre See the presentation example

Natural Resources Management Centre Documents and images prototype screen — Natural Resources Management Centre. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

Open Documents and images. Check the institution name.
Use All files, Documents or Images to find a file. Open its preview or download the original.
Use a sample file to try Add file. Private is the starting choice. Public needs a source, permission to share and review.
Use Access preview to try the institution reviewer and Public visitor views.

Files added in the prototype stay in this browser. Public sharing is an access preview. Existing public reference links already work online.

What your institution needs to confirm

Does a separate library for your institution meet your needs?Should new files start as Private for the permitted institution team?Should Public access require a review of the file and sharing permission?What documents and images will you store? Give the file types, usual sizes and need for earlier versions.Which job roles may add files, read Private files and approve Public files?Which files must stay Private? What permission, licence or expiry rule is needed for Public files?What else should change in this library?

6. Data structure management

Data structure keeps the existing source tree, records, charts and map. Manage structure adds a place to propose changes to definitions.

Open this screen for Natural Resources Management Centre See the presentation example

Natural Resources Management Centre Data structure management prototype screen — Natural Resources Management Centre. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

Open Data structure and choose Manage structure.
Use Add base domain for a main information area. Add inside creates a subject area, a nested subject, an entity type or a field under the right parent.
Give the definition a clear name, code and meaning. Reuse an existing definition when the meaning is the same.
For a field, check the data type, unit, required value, limits and missing-value rule. Save a Draft, then try the separate reviewer view.

An entity type means a kind of thing or event, such as a reservoir or an inspection. Drafts stay in this browser. A demo approval does not change real definitions, data, chart links or sharing rights.

What your institution needs to confirm

Do the existing main topics and subject areas match your institution’s work?Should definition changes stay Draft until the responsible reviewer checks them?Is it right to reuse the same entity type or field when its meaning is the same?Which main topics, subject areas, entity types or fields should we add or change?Which units, choices, limits, decimal places and missing-value rules must each new field use?Which job roles may edit definitions and review them? Who owns each main information area?When a meaning, unit or calculation changes, what review and version history does your institution need?

7. Users and access

User management shows example profiles for each institution. People and Roles and access let you review the proposed account screens.

Open this screen for Natural Resources Management Centre See the presentation example

Natural Resources Management Centre Users and access prototype screen — Natural Resources Management Centre. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

Open User management and choose the institution. The rows are examples, not a list of your staff.
Use View access to check a role. An administrator title alone does not give access to Private files.
Try Preview invitation or Preview access change. Check the role, start date, optional end date and reason.
Review the example permissions and tell us which job roles should receive each one.

These are interface previews only. They create no account, send no email and change no access. Use example details in the preview. Institution verification does not grant a real permission.

What your institution needs to confirm

Do the proposed role names and responsibilities match your institution?Should access be limited to the assigned institution and the agreed dates?Should reading Private files need a separate permission, even for an administrator?Which job roles should view data, add files, review Public requests, edit definitions and manage users?Who should approve new access, set an end date or remove access when someone changes duties?Which user fields, roles or access checks are missing? Give role names rather than passwords or private account details.

9. Anything else we should change?

Which decisions or services are missing?Which forms or fields should change? Give the existing form reference where possible.What should change in the entry, checking, expert, map or report steps?Are the English, Sinhala and Tamil words clear? Give the screen name, current word and your suggested wording.Who should join the next review and what should happen next?

Use the Download answers button at the top of this page. Share the downloaded file or printed copy through your agreed review channel. Nothing is sent automatically.

Natural Resources Management Centre

1. Check a decision

2. Try the inputs

3. Check each decision

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

4. Existing data forms for your institution

5. Documents and images

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

6. Data structure management

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

7. Users and access

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

8. Can you share data regularly?

9. Anything else we should change?