Forest Department

1. Check comparable forest-cover changesDEC-DP07-001 · Forest cover · Suggested priority: High

Investigate comparable forest-cover changes.

Validation required

Method. Net=later−earlier; percentage=100×net/earlier when earlier>0. Matched transitions must reproduce net=gain−loss. Net totals alone do not establish conversion.

Next step. Review evidence. Accept a genuine change for planning review, investigate a discontinuity, or defer comparison.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Earlier mapped class area [ha]; Later mapped class area [ha]; Matched area leaving the class [ha]; Matched area entering the class [ha]; Same fixed analysis extent [ha]; Native class and mapping version; Earlier observation date; Later observation date

Other required evidence. Forest boundaries; class maps; dates; hectares; classification uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — forest cover · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Earlier mapped class area	100	ha
Later mapped class area	90	ha
Matched area leaving the class	18	ha
Matched area entering the class	8	ha
Same fixed analysis extent	200	ha
Native class and mapping version	Sample matching forest/land-use class
Earlier observation date	2024-06-30
Later observation date	2025-06-30
Net class-area change	-10	ha
Relative class-area change	-10	%
Gross loss from class	18	ha
Gross gain to class	8	ha

Same boundary, definitions, observation basis and adequate map quality are required. Coverage changes and classification error are not proven land-use change. Example boundaries and transitions are fictional.

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist.

After the action. Comparable change after the chosen action and unresolved discrepancies.

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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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. Choose what to handle first: forest plots missing structural measurementsDEC-DP07-002 · Forest inventory · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prioritize forest plots missing structural measurements.

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

Other required evidence. Plot frame; measured plots; diameter; height; species; measurement dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — forest inventory · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity 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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

3. Target maintenance to poorly surviving planting cohortsDEC-DP07-003 · Restoration survival · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Target maintenance to poorly surviving planting cohorts.

Validation required

Method. Lower =100 × known survivors / original cohort. Upper =100 × (known survivors + unknown) / original cohort. Survivors + known failures + unknown = original cohort; replacements do not enter it.

Next step. Review evidence. Replace failed establishment, alter maintenance, or investigate site/treatment causes.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Original cohort [plants]; Known surviving original members [plants]; Known failed original members [plants]; Original members with unknown follow-up [plants]; Replacements in a separate cohort [plants]

Other required evidence. Cohort ID; planted count; surviving count; replacement count; follow-up date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — restoration survival · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Original cohort	450	plants
Known surviving original members	351	plants
Known failed original members	70	plants
Original members with unknown follow-up	29	plants
Replacements in a separate cohort	18	plants
Confirmed survival lower bound	78	%
Survival upper bound	84.444	%
Unknown follow-up	29	plants

These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits.

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist.

After the action. Survival of the original cohort, replacements and condition separately.

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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

4. Assign unresolved forest-disturbance investigationsDEC-DP07-004 · Forest alerts · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Assign unresolved forest-disturbance investigations.

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. Alert ID; location; detection date; verified disturbance; due date; investigator.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — forest alerts · 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. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity 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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

5. Choose what to handle first: fire prevention and preparedness locationsDEC-DP07-005 · Fire preparedness · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize fire prevention and preparedness 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. Select a feasible control, escalate beyond authority, or seek technical inspection.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Fuel observations; Fuel observations evidence reference; weather; weather evidence reference; fire history; fire history evidence reference; exposed assets; exposed assets evidence reference; access; access evidence reference; response capacity; response capacity evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Fuel observations; weather; fire history; exposed assets; access; response capacity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — fire preparedness · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Fuel observations	Missing
Fuel observations evidence reference
weather	Documented
weather evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
fire history	Documented
fire history evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
exposed assets	Documented
exposed assets evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
access	Documented
access evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
response capacity	Documented
response capacity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Documented unresolved critical condition	Unknown
Evidence observation date	2025-06-30
Existing control and its evidence	Sample documented control
Competent recipient	Responsible specialist / duty authority
Evidence gaps	1	items

Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count.

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist.

After the action. Verified control effectiveness and residual risk with evidence.

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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

6. Refer suspected forest encroachment for verificationDEC-DP07-006 · Encroachment · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer suspected forest encroachment for verification.

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. Legal forest boundary; observed footprint; boundary edition; field evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — encroachment · 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. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity 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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

7. Compare assisted regeneration and planting alternativesDEC-DP07-007 · Restoration selection · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare assisted regeneration and planting 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. Site degradation; natural regeneration; tenure; species options; costs; maintenance.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Natural regeneration · 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 assisted regeneration and planting alternatives; Site degradation and natural regeneration 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. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity 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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

8. Shortlist restoration species suited to site conditionsDEC-DP07-008 · Species selection · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Shortlist restoration species suited to site conditions.

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. Species traits; Species traits evidence reference; soil; soil evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; elevation; elevation evidence reference; native range; native range evidence reference; site objectives; site objectives evidence reference

Other required evidence. Species traits; soil; rainfall; elevation; native range; site objectives.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — species selection · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Species traits	Missing
Species traits evidence reference
soil	Documented
soil evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
rainfall	Documented
rainfall evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
elevation	Documented
elevation evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
native range	Documented
native range evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
site objectives	Documented
site objectives evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity 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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

9. Plan seedling production for approved planting demandDEC-DP07-009 · Nursery supply · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Plan seedling production for approved planting demand.

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 [seedlings]; Quarantined stock [seedlings]; Expired stock [seedlings]; Committed usable stock [seedlings]; Additional demand [seedlings]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days]

Other required evidence. Species; healthy seedlings; planned demand; growing time; mortality; planting window.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — nursery supply · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Physical stock	1,200	seedlings
Quarantined stock	100	seedlings
Expired stock	50	seedlings
Committed usable stock	740	seedlings
Additional demand	500	seedlings
Supplier lead time	14	days
Remaining shelf life of usable stock	30	days
Uncommitted usable stock	310	seedlings
Additional demand gap	190	seedlings

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. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity 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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

10. Review seed and seedling provenance before deploymentDEC-DP07-010 · Seed provenance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review seed and seedling provenance before deployment.

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. Lot ID; Lot ID evidence reference; species; species evidence reference; provenance; provenance evidence reference; collection permit; collection permit evidence reference; health test; health test evidence reference; planting site; planting site evidence reference

Other required evidence. Lot ID; species; provenance; collection permit; health test; planting site.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — seed provenance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Lot ID	Missing
Lot ID evidence reference
species	Documented
species evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
provenance	Documented
provenance evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
collection permit	Documented
collection permit evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
health test	Documented
health test evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
planting site	Documented
planting site evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity 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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

11. Choose what to handle first: invasive-species control and follow-upDEC-DP07-011 · Invasive plants · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize invasive-species control and follow-up.

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. Select a feasible control, escalate beyond authority, or seek technical inspection.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Species observations; Species observations evidence reference; occupied area; occupied area evidence reference; spread; spread evidence reference; treatment history; treatment history evidence reference; ecological sensitivity; ecological sensitivity evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Species observations; occupied area; spread; treatment history; ecological sensitivity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — invasive plants · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Species observations	Missing
Species observations evidence reference
occupied area	Documented
occupied area evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
spread	Documented
spread evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
treatment history	Documented
treatment history evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
ecological sensitivity	Documented
ecological sensitivity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Documented unresolved critical condition	Unknown
Evidence observation date	2025-06-30
Existing control and its evidence	Sample documented control
Competent recipient	Responsible specialist / duty authority
Evidence gaps	1	items

Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count.

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist.

After the action. Verified control effectiveness and residual risk with evidence.

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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

12. Choose what to handle first: forest catchments needing conservation actionDEC-DP07-012 · Watershed protection · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize forest catchments needing conservation action.

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. Catchment; erosion factors; downstream dependence; forest condition; current controls.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — watershed protection · 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. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity 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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

13. Review inventory evidence for carbon-stock estimatesDEC-DP07-013 · Forest carbon · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review inventory evidence for carbon-stock estimates.

Verified published component · Carbon stock-difference component

Method. (Later carbon density − earlier carbon density) × same inventory area, with identical pools, method and boundaries.

Next step. Review evidence. Select inventory improvements or restoration options for specialist review.

Inputs, example and sources

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change · 2006 IPCC Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 2
Institution publication · Section 2.3.1.1, equation 2.8, stock-difference method

The screen reports the period total. IPCC annualisation requires elapsed years. Pools, inventory inputs and local application still need confirmation.

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

Analysis inputs. Earlier carbon density [t C/ha]; Later carbon density [t C/ha]; Same inventory area [ha]; Included pools and allometry references

Other required evidence. Tree measurements; allometry; carbon fractions; pool coverage; area; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — forest carbon · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Earlier carbon density	100	t C/ha
Later carbon density	90	t C/ha
Same inventory area	85	ha
Included pools and allometry references	Sample matching biomass pools; source model required
Carbon stock change	-850	t C
Carbon-density change	-10	t C/ha

Inventory plots, allometry and uncertainty remain required evidence. Stock change is not an issued carbon credit, additionality test or payable service.

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist.

After the action. Independently reviewed stock change, uncertainty and reversals.

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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

14. Address gaps in community forestry participationDEC-DP07-014 · Community forestry · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Address gaps in community forestry participation.

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

Other required evidence. Eligible communities; agreements; participation; benefits; service delivery; period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — community forestry · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity 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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

15. Refer complete timber-use cases for formal determinationDEC-DP07-015 · Timber authorization · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer complete timber-use cases 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. Permit request; Permit request evidence reference; species; species evidence reference; quantity; quantity evidence reference; provenance; provenance evidence reference; forest plan; forest plan evidence reference; current conditions; current conditions evidence reference

Other required evidence. Permit request; species; quantity; provenance; forest plan; current conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — timber authorization · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Permit request	Missing
Permit request evidence reference
species	Documented
species evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
quantity	Documented
quantity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
provenance	Documented
provenance evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
forest plan	Documented
forest plan evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
current conditions	Documented
current conditions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity 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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

16. Schedule silvicultural work by stand conditionDEC-DP07-016 · Plantation management · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Schedule silvicultural work by stand condition.

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. Stand age; stocking; condition; treatment prescriptions; crew capacity; season.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — plantation management · 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. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity 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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

17. Compare visitor demand with safe site capacityDEC-DP07-017 · Ecotourism · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare visitor demand with safe site capacity.

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 [visitors/day]; Rated capacity for that period [visitors/day]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [visitors/day]

Other required evidence. Visitor numbers; approved capacity; trail condition; facilities; habitat sensitivity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — ecotourism · Laggala Pallegama

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

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. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity 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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

18. Select comparable forest biodiversity surveysDEC-DP07-018 · Biodiversity monitoring · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select comparable forest biodiversity surveys.

Validation required

Method. Show distinct observed species with survey effort, protocol, season and completed visits. No correction for detection is silently inferred.

Next step. Review survey comparability. Adjust survey effort or refer habitat/species actions for specialist review.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Observed distinct species [species]; Survey effort [hours]; Survey protocol and version; Survey season and taxonomic scope; All planned survey visits completed

Other required evidence. Survey events; species; method; effort; season; habitat; detection limits.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — biodiversity monitoring · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Observed distinct species	28	species
Survey effort	18	hours
Survey protocol and version	Sample protocol1
Survey season and taxonomic scope	Sample matched season / taxon group
All planned survey visits completed	Yes
Observed richness	28	species
Recorded effort	18	hours

Observed richness is not population size or occupancy. Comparable effort alone does not remove detection bias or establish a biodiversity trend.

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist.

After the action. Comparable biodiversity estimates, effort and unintended effects.

GBIF biological survey publishing guide — Institution publication. Version1.0.2, sections5.4 to5.7 and7.3. Survey event, effort, protocol, sampling scope and non-detection context; not a population estimator.
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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

19. Compare feasible patrol coverage routesDEC-DP07-019 · Patrol deployment · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare feasible patrol coverage routes.

Validation required

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

Next step. Resolve access/capacity evidence. Choose a permitted feasible route, postpone, or request updated access evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Verified route distance [km]; Estimated route travel time [minutes]; Usable vehicle/team capacity [units]; Required capacity [units]; Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window

Other required evidence. Incident locations; patrol resources; terrain; permitted routes; travel times.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — patrol deployment · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Verified route distance	24	km
Estimated route travel time	65	minutes
Usable vehicle/team capacity	18	units
Required capacity	15	units
Access, closures and operating conditions	Unresolved
Operating and service window	Sample operating window
Estimated travel time	65	minutes
Capacity minus demand	3	units

Straight-line distance is not a road route. Example routes establish no current road status, emergency clearance or safe evacuation instruction.

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist.

After the action. Verified travel time, deliveries and unresolved access needs.

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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

20. Correct inconsistent forest and compartment classificationsDEC-DP07-020 · Forest records · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Correct inconsistent forest and compartment classifications.

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. Approve a documented mapping, keep it Draft, or create a governed concept after review.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Forest ID; Forest ID evidence reference; compartment label; compartment label evidence reference; source definition; source definition evidence reference; legal edition; legal edition evidence reference; steward mapping; steward mapping evidence reference

Other required evidence. Forest ID; compartment label; source definition; legal edition; steward mapping.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — forest records · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Forest ID	Missing
Forest ID evidence reference
compartment label	Documented
compartment label evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
source definition	Documented
source definition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
legal edition	Documented
legal edition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
steward mapping	Documented
steward mapping evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Forester, inventory specialist and biodiversity specialist.

After the action. Unmapped/conflicting concepts and history preserved across revisions.

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

Forest Conservation functions — 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.
IPCC 2019 Refinement — Institution 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?

Field	Unit	Required
Name	Confirm if needed	No
Type	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
ProCov ID	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
nsdi.sde.Protected_Area_Network.area	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Forest Type	Confirm if needed	No
Forest Name	Confirm if needed	No
Range	Confirm if needed	No
Beat	Confirm if needed	No
Division	Confirm if needed	No
FA Division	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
Area Final	Confirm if needed	No
District	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Name	Confirm if needed	No
Type	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
ProCov ID	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Classification	Confirm if needed	No
Forest type	Confirm if needed	No
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Area	Confirm if needed	No

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

9. Anything else we should change?

Forest Department

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?