Department of Agrarian Development

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. Target support to registered land not cultivated this season 2. Review repeated farmer assistance before new allocation 3. Choose what to handle first: service areas with unmet crop water needs 4. Clear delayed farmer-service requests 5. Resolve conflicting parcel and cultivator records 6. Refer unresolved cultivation-right disputes 7. Screen paddy conversion requests for formal determination 8. Compare minor-tank rehabilitation alternatives 9. Review organization registration and governance compliance 10. Follow up unreconciled farmer-organization funds 11. Choose what to handle first: verification of reported crop damage 12. Refer complete subsidy applications for approval 13. Plan timely distribution of approved farm inputs 14. Allocate staff to agrarian centres with workload gaps 15. Schedule communal minor-irrigation maintenance 16. Improve representation in cultivation meetings 17. Refer encroachment concerns for field and legal review 18. Review head-end and tail-end water-delivery differences 19. Schedule outdated farmer and land record checks 20. Compare whether agrarian support improved cultivation

1. Target support to registered land not cultivated this seasonDEC-DP04-001 · Paddy utilization · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Target support to registered land not cultivated this season.

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 [ha]; Distinct members of that frame covered [ha]; Frame members with unknown coverage [ha]

Other required evidence. Registered paddy hectares; cultivated hectares; parcel ID; season; inactivity reason.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — paddy utilization · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water 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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Review repeated farmer assistance before new allocationDEC-DP04-002 · Support overlap · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review repeated farmer assistance before new allocation.

Validation required

Method. Compare the same permitted entity, purpose and qualifying unit. Intersect dated support intervals; overlapping support is a review flag, not proof of duplicate entitlement.

Next step. Review possible overlap. Resolve duplicate identity or overlapping support and decide permitted complementary assistance.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Farmer ID; assistance programme; purpose; amount; season; approved entitlement.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — support overlap · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. Confirmed unique support and unresolved overlap cases.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Choose what to handle first: service areas with unmet crop water needsDEC-DP04-003 · Minor irrigation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize service areas with unmet crop water needs.

Validation required

Method. Observed value minus Planned value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Planned value when the earlier value is positive.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate a material deviation, assign correction, or propose a target revision.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Planned value [m³]; Observed value [m³]

Other required evidence. Tank command hectares; crop water demand; dependable supply; season; service boundary.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — minor irrigation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Planned value	100	m³
Observed value	90	m³
Difference	-10	m³
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. Subsequent variance with original and revised targets retained.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Clear delayed farmer-service requestsDEC-DP04-004 · Agrarian services · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Clear delayed farmer-service requests.

Validation required

Method. Open age = assessment date − received date. Days past due = max(0, assessment date − recorded due date) for open cases. Show documented critical conditions separately.

Next step. Follow up overdue case. Assign the next permitted case, escalate an overdue case, request evidence, or close with proof.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Request ID; service type; receipt date; due date; pauses; responsible officer.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — agrarian services · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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

Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone.

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. Response time, aged cases, completion and reopened cases.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Resolve conflicting parcel and cultivator recordsDEC-DP04-005 · Paddy register · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve conflicting parcel and cultivator records.

Validation required

Method. 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.

Next step. Resolve source disagreement. Assign discrepancies to the custodian, accept documented corrections, or retain unresolved versions.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Original source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence

Other required evidence. Parcel ID; registered cultivator; tenure evidence; mapped hectares; field verification.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — paddy register · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Unresolved equivalence items	1	items

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. Discrepancies resolved with evidence and repeat error rate.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Refer unresolved cultivation-right disputesDEC-DP04-006 · Cultivation disputes · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer unresolved cultivation-right disputes.

Validation required

Method. 100 × distinct respondents / invited people. Record unresolved issues individually; one respondent may raise several issues.

Next step. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Address concerns, revise the proposal, seek required responses, or escalate unresolved conditions.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Distinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible

Other required evidence. Case ID; claimant evidence; affected parcel; hearing records; objections; authority.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — cultivation disputes · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Response share	71.579	%
Unresolved issues	16	issues

Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights.

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. Resolved concerns, participation and compliance with recorded commitments.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Screen paddy conversion requests for formal determinationDEC-DP04-007 · Land conversion · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Screen paddy conversion requests for formal determination.

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. Submit a recommendation to the appointed authority, request evidence, or record an appeal.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Parcel status; proposed use; application evidence; current rules; inspection findings.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — land conversion · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. Documented determinations, processing time and appeal outcomes.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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 minor-tank rehabilitation alternativesDEC-DP04-008 · Tank rehabilitation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare minor-tank rehabilitation 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. Tank condition; command hectares; sediment survey; repair cost; demand; safeguards.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Service-centre repair · 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 minor-tank rehabilitation alternatives; Tank condition and command hectares 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. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water 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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Review organization registration and governance complianceDEC-DP04-009 · Farmer organizations · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review organization registration and governance compliance.

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. 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

Other required evidence. Organization ID; registration; membership; meeting records; audit findings; current criteria.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — farmer organizations · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water 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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Follow up unreconciled farmer-organization fundsDEC-DP04-010 · Organization finance · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Follow up unreconciled farmer-organization funds.

Validation required

Method. 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.

Next step. Reconcile closing balance. Investigate unexplained balances and propose revised measurement or operating action.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. 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]

Other required evidence. Opening cash; receipts; authorized expenditure; bank balance; supporting vouchers.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — organization finance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Calculated closing balance	164,000	LKR
Recorded minus calculated closing	-500	LKR

Use the same physical boundary, period and units. A residual is a reconciliation issue, not automatically a measured loss.

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. Reconciled balance residuals and verified operating results.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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: verification of reported crop damageDEC-DP04-011 · Crop damage · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize verification of reported crop damage.

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. 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

Other required evidence. Claim ID; affected hectares; crop stage; event date; inspection evidence; parcel ID.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — crop damage · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water 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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Refer complete subsidy applications for approvalDEC-DP04-012 · Subsidy administration · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer complete subsidy applications for approval.

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. Submit a recommendation to the appointed authority, request evidence, or record an appeal.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Applicant ID; scheme version; parcel evidence; eligibility documents; prior assistance.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — subsidy administration · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. Documented determinations, processing time and appeal outcomes.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Plan timely distribution of approved farm inputsDEC-DP04-013 · Input distribution · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Plan timely distribution of approved farm inputs.

Validation required

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

Next step. Review replenishment gap. Reorder approved quantities, redistribute stock, or quarantine affected lots.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. 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]

Other required evidence. Approved demand; usable stock; committed stock; delivery date; input expiry.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — input distribution · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Uncommitted usable stock	310	kg input
Additional demand gap	190	kg input

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

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. Stockouts, expiry, losses and verified lot traceability.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Allocate staff to agrarian centres with workload gapsDEC-DP04-014 · Service centres · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Allocate staff to agrarian centres with workload gaps.

Validation required

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

Next step. Review capacity shortfall. Redistribute usable resources, propose expansion, or manage demand within authorized limits.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Demand in the selected period [staff hours]; Rated capacity for that period [staff hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [staff hours]

Other required evidence. Open requests; handling time; available staff hours; service targets; travel requirements.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — service centres · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Demand in the selected period	150	staff hours
Rated capacity for that period	180	staff hours
Unavailable or restricted capacity	45	staff hours
Usable capacity minus demand	-15	staff hours
Usable capacity	135	staff hours

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

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. Actual usable capacity, unmet demand and service 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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Schedule communal minor-irrigation maintenanceDEC-DP04-015 · Canal maintenance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Schedule communal minor-irrigation maintenance.

Validation required

Method. 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.

Next step. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Assign a feasible timetable, redistribute resources, or escalate the blocked dependency.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. 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

Other required evidence. Canal reach; defects; work duration; cultivation calendar; labour availability; approvals.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — canal maintenance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Required resource	Watershed field team
Task start	2025-06-01
Task end	2025-06-04
Earliest permitted start	2025-05-28
Latest permitted finish	2025-06-08
Required resource effort	16	hours
Available resource effort	24	hours
Predecessor task reference	None
Mandatory permits and prerequisites	Met
Planned duration	3	days
Resource hours remaining	8	hours

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. On-time completion with verified outputs and resource use.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Improve representation in cultivation meetingsDEC-DP04-016 · Farmer participation · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Improve representation in cultivation meetings.

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 [cultivators]; Distinct members of that frame covered [cultivators]; Frame members with unknown coverage [cultivators]

Other required evidence. Eligible cultivators; attendance; participation category; meeting date; unresolved concerns.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — farmer participation · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water 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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Refer encroachment concerns for field and legal reviewDEC-DP04-017 · Tank reservations · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer encroachment concerns for field and legal review.

Validation required

Method. 100 × union of constraint overlap / proposal footprint. Count intersecting constraint areas once.

Next step. Review evidence. Refer affected sites for technical/legal review, revise the footprint, or request a field survey.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Proposal footprint [ha]; Union of overlapping constraint areas [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition

Other required evidence. Reservation boundary; observed activity geometry; map edition; inspection evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — tank reservations · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Proposal footprint	75	ha
Union of overlapping constraint areas	18	ha
Boundary edition	Sample boundary1
Constraint definition	Sample constraint class
Overlap share	24	%
Overlapping area	18	ha

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.

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. Resolved constraints and independently checked site conditions.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Review head-end and tail-end water-delivery differencesDEC-DP04-018 · Irrigation equity · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

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

Validation required

Method. Observed value minus Planned value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Planned value when the earlier value is positive.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate a material deviation, assign correction, or propose a target revision.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Planned value [m³]; Observed value [m³]

Other required evidence. Outlet ID; position; delivered cubic metres; agreed allocation; service hectares.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — irrigation equity · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Planned value	100	m³
Observed value	90	m³
Difference	-10	m³
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. Subsequent variance with original and revised targets retained.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Schedule outdated farmer and land record checksDEC-DP04-019 · Registry updates · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Schedule outdated farmer and land record checks.

Validation required

Method. 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.

Next step. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Assign a feasible timetable, redistribute resources, or escalate the blocked dependency.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Other required evidence. Record ID; last verification; reported change; officer capacity; review due date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — registry updates · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Required resource	Watershed field team
Task start	2025-06-01
Task end	2025-06-04
Earliest permitted start	2025-05-28
Latest permitted finish	2025-06-08
Required resource effort	16	hours
Available resource effort	24	hours
Predecessor task reference	None
Mandatory permits and prerequisites	Met
Planned duration	3	days
Resource hours remaining	8	hours

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water specialist.

After the action. On-time completion with verified outputs and resource use.

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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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. Compare whether agrarian support improved cultivationDEC-DP04-020 · Service outcomes · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Evaluate whether agrarian support improved cultivation.

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 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

Other required evidence. Supported plots; baseline cultivation; follow-up cultivation; comparable plots; weather.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — service outcomes · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
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
Difference in changes	10	%

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

Proposed checking role. Agrarian service officer and relevant land/water 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

Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. 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.

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

Agrarian development divisions · Administrative & Planning Areas

Existing form reference: fc991a6c3bc249f6

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development Id	Confirm if needed	No
name	Confirm if needed	No
created Date	Confirm if needed	No
modified Date	Confirm if needed	No
city	Confirm if needed	No
latitude	Confirm if needed	No
longitude	Confirm if needed	No

District commissioner divisions · Administrative & Planning Areas

Existing form reference: 57c890c642eab82c

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
district Comm Id	Confirm if needed	No
name	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / do Agrarian Development Id	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / name	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / created Date	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / modified Date	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / city	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / latitude	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / longitude	Confirm if needed	No
created Date	Confirm if needed	No
modified Date	Confirm if needed	No
city	Confirm if needed	No
latitude	Confirm if needed	No
longitude	Confirm if needed	No

Asc divisions · Administrative & Planning Areas

Existing form reference: 0bb5ed17e5cdc863

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
asc Id	Confirm if needed	No
name	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / district Comm Id	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / name	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / do Agrarian Development DTO	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / created Date	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / modified Date	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / city	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / latitude	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / longitude	Confirm if needed	No
created Date	Confirm if needed	No
modified Date	Confirm if needed	No
city	Confirm if needed	No
latitude	Confirm if needed	No
longitude	Confirm if needed	No

Paddy, OFC & VEG — 2026 Yala - April · Crop Production

Existing form reference: f2c8e1b979a467f1

Field	Unit	Required
Crop	Confirm if needed	No
District	Confirm if needed	No
Measure	Confirm if needed	No
Value	ha	No
Unit	Confirm if needed	No
Season	Confirm if needed	No

Paddy area by irrigation scheme, 2015–2024 · Crop Production

Existing form reference: a12dececef469dda

Field	Unit	Required
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Published season label	Confirm if needed	No
Source block	Confirm if needed	No
Measure	Confirm if needed	No
Irrigation scheme	Confirm if needed	No
Area	ha	No

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 Department of Agrarian Development See the presentation example

Department of Agrarian Development Documents and images prototype screen — Department of Agrarian Development. 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 Department of Agrarian Development See the presentation example

Department of Agrarian Development Data structure management prototype screen — Department of Agrarian Development. 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 Department of Agrarian Development See the presentation example

Department of Agrarian Development Users and access prototype screen — Department of Agrarian Development. 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.

Department of Agrarian Development

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?