Department of Meteorology

1. Prepare reviewed rainfall-anomaly evidenceDEC-DP08-001 · Rainfall anomalies · Suggested priority: High

Prepare reviewed rainfall-anomaly evidence.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Station rainfall; historical baseline; season; quality flags; homogeneous series.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — rainfall anomalies · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist.

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

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Find prolonged rainfall spells requiring advisory reviewDEC-DP08-002 · Dry and wet spells · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify prolonged rainfall spells requiring advisory review.

Validation required

Method. Count consecutive dated observations satisfying the stated rainfall rule. Missing days interrupt a spell; do not count unknown rain as zero.

Next step. Review evidence. Refer verified spells for relevant advisory review or repair data gaps.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Observation day; Daily rainfall [mm]; Example dry-day threshold [mm]; Day classified as dry when rainfall

Other required evidence. Daily rainfall; threshold definition; missing dates; season; station.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Rattota rainfall station scenario · Rattota

Input or result	Value	Unit
Observation day	2025-06-01
Daily rainfall	4	mm
Example dry-day threshold	1	mm
Day classified as dry when rainfall	< threshold
Daily rainfall	4	mm

The example threshold is configurable and is not an official warning criterion.

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist.

After the action. Spell duration, data completeness and advisory follow-up.

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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Choose what to handle first: stations with incomplete observationsDEC-DP08-003 · Station completeness · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize stations with incomplete observations.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Station ID; observation schedule; valid records; missing intervals; last reading.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — station completeness · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Expected observations in the window	30	observations
Distinct valid observations	24	observations
Latest valid observation	2025-06-28
Assessment date	2025-06-30
Required observation interval	1	days
Completeness	80	%
Age of latest observation	2	days
Missing observations	6	observations

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

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist.

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

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Determine where historical rainfall supports SPI analysisDEC-DP08-004 · Drought monitoring · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Determine where historical rainfall supports SPI analysis.

Validation required

Method. Show valid/expected monthly coverage and complete baseline years. Assess distribution fit, zero rainfall, timescale and homogeneity separately; no SPI is invented.

Next step. Complete SPI baseline evidence. Refer supported drought evidence for a specialist advisory decision or withhold unsupported SPI.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Complete comparable baseline years [years]; Expected monthly observations [observations]; Valid comparable monthly observations [observations]; Proposed accumulation period; Station history and series homogeneity checked; Distribution fit and zero-rainfall handling documented

Other required evidence. Monthly rainfall; reference period; distribution fit; zero treatment; timescale.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — drought monitoring · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Complete comparable baseline years	30	years
Expected monthly observations	360	observations
Valid comparable monthly observations	350	observations
Proposed accumulation period	3 months
Station history and series homogeneity checked	Missing
Distribution fit and zero-rainfall handling documented	Missing
Baseline completeness	97.222	%
Missing monthly observations	10	observations

WMO recommends a long rainfall record, ideally at least30 years. Readiness counts alone do not validate the fitted SPI method.

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist.

After the action. Validated drought series and consequences observed over the same area.

WMO Standardized Precipitation Index User Guide — Institution publication. WMO No 1090; SPI calculation and interpretation guidance. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Check unusual maximum and minimum temperaturesDEC-DP08-005 · Temperature extremes · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate unusual maximum and minimum temperatures.

Validation required

Method. Observed minus comparable reference temperature in °C. Do not express a Celsius difference as a relative percentage.

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Daily temperatures; baseline; instrument history; quality checks; station elevation.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — temperature extremes · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Comparable reference value	26.5	°C
Later/comparison value	27.4	°C
Difference	0.9	°C

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist.

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

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Prepare official-warning review cases from accepted observationsDEC-DP08-006 · Severe weather · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prepare official-warning review cases from accepted observations.

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. Forecast issuance; Forecast issuance evidence reference; observed conditions; observed conditions evidence reference; affected area; affected area evidence reference; warning criteria; warning criteria evidence reference; duty officer; duty officer evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Forecast issuance; observed conditions; affected area; warning criteria; duty officer.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — severe weather · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Forecast issuance	Missing
Forecast issuance evidence reference
observed conditions	Documented
observed conditions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
affected area	Documented
affected area evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
warning criteria	Documented
warning criteria evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
duty officer	Documented
duty officer evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Documented unresolved critical condition	Unknown
Evidence observation date	2025-06-30
Existing control and its evidence	Sample documented control
Competent recipient	Responsible specialist / duty authority
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. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification 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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Review forecast errors before operational changesDEC-DP08-007 · Forecast verification · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review forecast errors before operational changes.

Verified published formula · Matched-pair RMSE

Method. Error=forecast−observed. Matched-pair RMSE=sqrt(mean(error²)); MAE=mean(abs(error)); bias=mean(error).

Next step. Review evidence. Recalibrate or investigate the forecast, compare baseline skill, or retain with limitations.

Inputs, example and sources

Environment and Climate Change Canada · What is Root Mean Square Error
Government publication · Displayed RMSE equation and definitions of forecast, observation and verification count

Local verification periods, observation quality and forecast applicability still need confirmation.

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

Analysis inputs. Archived forecast rainfall [mm]; Verifying observed rainfall [mm]; Forecast lead time [hours]; Forecast issue date; Forecast valid date

Other required evidence. Forecast version; lead time; observed outcome; location; verification metric.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — forecast verification · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Archived forecast rainfall	48	mm
Verifying observed rainfall	41.76	mm
Forecast lead time	24	hours
Forecast issue date	2025-06-28
Forecast valid date	2025-06-29
Forecast minus observed	6.24	mm

Match lead, valid interval, location, variable, units and observation quality. Do not verify a forecast against data available when it was issued.

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist.

After the action. Out-of-sample errors, bias and decision-relevant forecast performance.

Environment Canada: root mean squared error — Government publication. RMSE formula and verification sample definition. Published matched-pair RMSE; does not validate local forecast application.
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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Check seasonal forecast performance across past seasonsDEC-DP08-008 · Seasonal forecasts · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Assess seasonal forecast performance across past seasons.

Verified published component · Binary Brier score and skill component

Method. Brier score = mean((event probability−observed0/1)²). Skill=1−Brier/reference Brier when the same-case reference score is positive.

Next step. Review evidence. Recalibrate or investigate the forecast, compare baseline skill, or retain with limitations.

Inputs, example and sources

Japan Meteorological Agency · Outline of Operational Numerical Weather Prediction Appendix A Verification Indices 2024
Government publication · Sections A.3.1 and A.3.2, equations A.3.1 and A.3.3, printed page 239, PDF page 7

The Brier score is checked for binary events. The prototype permits a supplied reference forecast; confirm its independent baseline and comparability before interpreting skill.

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

Analysis inputs. Archived probability for the defined event [fraction]; Observed event indicator [events]; Independent reference forecast probability [fraction]; Forecast issue date; Event verification date; Predefined event/category and reference basis

Other required evidence. Probabilistic forecasts; observed categories; hindcast period; skill measure; baseline.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — seasonal forecasts · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Archived probability for the defined event	0.7	fraction
Observed event indicator	1	events
Independent reference forecast probability	0.4	fraction
Forecast issue date	2025-03-01
Event verification date	2025-06-01
Predefined event/category and reference basis	Sample below-normal seasonal rainfall event
Squared probability error	0.09	0–1

Define one event, lead, observation category thresholds and an independent reference. Do not apply rainfall RMSE to probabilities or interpret one score as complete calibration.

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist.

After the action. Out-of-sample errors, bias and decision-relevant forecast performance.

JMA numerical weather prediction outline — Government publication. AppendixA.3, equationsA.3.1 and A.3.3. Brier score and reference skill for binary probability forecasts; the prototype uses one specified event, not an undifferentiated seasonal score.
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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Select candidate locations for observation-network expansionDEC-DP08-009 · Station siting · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select candidate locations for observation-network expansion.

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. Coverage gaps; Coverage gaps evidence reference; terrain; terrain evidence reference; exposure; exposure evidence reference; access; access evidence reference; power; power evidence reference; communication; communication evidence reference; siting standards; siting standards evidence reference

Other required evidence. Coverage gaps; terrain; exposure; access; power; communication; siting standards.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — station siting · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Coverage gaps	Missing
Coverage gaps evidence reference
terrain	Documented
terrain evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
exposure	Documented
exposure evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
access	Documented
access evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
power	Documented
power evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
communication	Documented
communication evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
siting standards	Documented
siting standards evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification 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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Schedule calibration and repair of weather instrumentsDEC-DP08-010 · Instrument maintenance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Schedule calibration and repair of weather instruments.

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. Authorize feasible repair through the proper work process, inspect further, or restrict unsafe use.

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. Instrument ID; calibration due date; fault history; spare parts; technician availability.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — instrument maintenance · 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. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist.

After the action. Verified defect closure, service availability and repeat failures.

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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Find time series affected by station or instrument changesDEC-DP08-011 · Data homogenization · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Identify time series affected by station or instrument changes.

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. Station metadata; relocation dates; instrument changes; parallel records; break tests.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — data homogenization · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Original source value/definition	Station metadata: primary register entry
Comparison source value/definition	Station metadata: conflicting source return
Original version	Sample version1
Comparison version	Sample version2
Documented equivalence evidence	Unresolved
Unresolved equivalence items	1	items

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification 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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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: agricultural advisories by crop exposureDEC-DP08-012 · Agrometeorology · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize agricultural advisories by crop exposure.

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. Crop calendar; Crop calendar evidence reference; weather observations; weather observations evidence reference; forecasts; forecasts evidence reference; vulnerable crop stages; vulnerable crop stages evidence reference; advisory protocol; advisory protocol evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Crop calendar; weather observations; forecasts; vulnerable crop stages; advisory protocol.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — agrometeorology · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Crop calendar	Missing
Crop calendar evidence reference
weather observations	Documented
weather observations evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
forecasts	Documented
forecasts evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
vulnerable crop stages	Documented
vulnerable crop stages evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
advisory protocol	Documented
advisory protocol evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Documented unresolved critical condition	Unknown
Evidence observation date	2025-06-30
Existing control and its evidence	Sample documented control
Competent recipient	Responsible specialist / duty authority
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. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification 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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Check weather-input fitness for agricultural water estimatesDEC-DP08-013 · Evapotranspiration · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Assess weather-input fitness for agricultural water estimates.

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. Accept a fit source for a defined use, restrict it, or request metadata/schema correction.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Radiation; Radiation evidence reference; temperature; temperature evidence reference; humidity; humidity evidence reference; wind; wind evidence reference; reference-site metadata; reference-site metadata evidence reference; observation dates; observation dates evidence reference

Other required evidence. Radiation; temperature; humidity; wind; reference-site metadata; observation dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — evapotranspiration · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Radiation	Missing
Radiation evidence reference
temperature	Documented
temperature evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
humidity	Documented
humidity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
wind	Documented
wind evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
reference-site metadata	Documented
reference-site metadata evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
observation dates	Documented
observation dates evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist.

After the action. Resolved interoperability issues and current verified metadata.

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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Refer marine forecast exceptions for specialist reviewDEC-DP08-014 · Marine services · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer marine forecast exceptions for specialist review.

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. Wind; Wind evidence reference; waves; waves evidence reference; forecast areas; forecast areas evidence reference; vessel advisories; vessel advisories evidence reference; issue time; issue time evidence reference; approved criteria; approved criteria evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Wind; waves; forecast areas; vessel advisories; issue time; approved criteria.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — marine services · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Wind	Missing
Wind evidence reference
waves	Documented
waves evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
forecast areas	Documented
forecast areas evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
vessel advisories	Documented
vessel advisories evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
issue time	Documented
issue time evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
approved criteria	Documented
approved criteria evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Documented unresolved critical condition	Unknown
Evidence observation date	2025-06-30
Existing control and its evidence	Sample documented control
Competent recipient	Responsible specialist / duty authority
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. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification 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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Choose what to handle first: aviation meteorological service interruptionsDEC-DP08-015 · Aviation services · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize aviation meteorological service interruptions.

Validation required

Method. Time availability =100 ×(scheduled−non-overlapping outage)/scheduled. Request success =100 ×(requests−failed)/requests. Response time is a separate measure.

Next step. Review evidence. Repair recurring faults, revise service capacity, or escalate dependencies.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Scheduled observation window [hours]; Union of qualifying outage intervals [hours]; Eligible service requests [requests]; Failed eligible requests [requests]; Measured response time [ms]

Other required evidence. Service schedule; observation availability; outage duration; affected aerodromes; targets.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — aviation services · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Scheduled observation window	168	hours
Union of qualifying outage intervals	13	hours
Eligible service requests	1,000	requests
Failed eligible requests	40	requests
Measured response time	800	ms
Time availability	92.262	%
Request success	96	%
Measured response time	800	ms

State maintenance exclusions, operating window, probe, workload and service objective. Observed response time is not a p95 claim unless the percentile is actually measured.

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist.

After the action. Verified availability, interruptions and actual service delivery.

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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Target awareness using verified lightning-risk evidenceDEC-DP08-016 · Lightning exposure · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Target awareness using verified lightning-risk evidence.

Validation required

Method. 100×distinct spatially matched receptors / receptors in the same frame. Count a receptor once across overlapping areas; do not invent hectare areas from points.

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. Distinct receptors/observations in the defined frame [units]; Distinct receptors matching the stated spatial relation [units]; Boundary edition and spatial predicate; Hazard/constraint/source class and observation period

Other required evidence. Lightning events; population exposure; infrastructure; seasonal pattern; limitations.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — lightning exposure · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Distinct receptors/observations in the defined frame	75	units
Distinct receptors matching the stated spatial relation	18	units
Boundary edition and spatial predicate	Sample within/overlap predicate1
Hazard/constraint/source class and observation period	Sample dated source class
Spatially matched share	24	%
Distinct matched receptors	18	units

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. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification 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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Review long-term trends in homogeneous station recordsDEC-DP08-017 · Climate trends · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Review long-term trends in homogeneous station records.

Validation required

Method. Display dated air temperatures and their mean/sample standard deviation in °C. Celsius has an arbitrary zero; do not report relative percentage change or a coefficient of variation.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate persistent changes, review the operating plan, or extend monitoring.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Comparable observation [°C]

Other required evidence. Quality-controlled annual series; station history; uncertainty; baseline; missingness.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — climate trends · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Comparable observation	28.1	°C
Observed value	28.1	°C

Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend.

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist.

After the action. Trend and uncertainty after action using the same definition.

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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Check disagreement between nearby and reference sensorsDEC-DP08-018 · Observation reconciliation · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Investigate disagreement between nearby and reference sensors.

Validation required

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

Next step. Review evidence. 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 measurement [mm]; Independent comparison measurement [mm]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition

Other required evidence. Sensor IDs; concurrent readings; calibration; distance; terrain; measurement units.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — observation reconciliation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Original source measurement	100	mm
Independent comparison measurement	90	mm
Original measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Comparison measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Compared measure and definition	Sample comparable mm measure; same input scope
Difference	-10	mm
Relative change	-10	%

Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite.

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification 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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Clear delayed requests for permitted climate dataDEC-DP08-019 · Climate requests · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Clear delayed requests for permitted climate data.

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; purpose; receipt date; due date; approval status; custodian.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — climate requests · 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. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification 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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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. Check source rights and approval before publishing productsDEC-DP08-020 · Forecast publication · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Check source rights and approval before publishing products.

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. Grant only scoped authorized access, aggregate/redact, refuse, or request approval.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Product version; Product version evidence reference; forecast validity; forecast validity evidence reference; review; review evidence reference; publication authority; publication authority evidence reference; license; license evidence reference; audience; audience evidence reference

Other required evidence. Product version; forecast validity; review; publication authority; license; audience.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — forecast publication · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Product version	Missing
Product version evidence reference
forecast validity	Documented
forecast validity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
review	Documented
review evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
publication authority	Documented
publication authority evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
license	Documented
license evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
audience	Documented
audience evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Duty meteorologist and climate/forecast verification specialist.

After the action. Permitted use, expiry compliance and investigated disclosure incidents.

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

Department of Meteorology products — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agro-climatology and climate change division — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
WMO SPI user guide record — 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
Station Name	Confirm if needed	No
River Basin	Confirm if needed	No
Quadrant	Confirm if needed	No
X_Meter	Confirm if needed	No
Y_Meter	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No

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

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

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

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

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?

Department of Meteorology

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?