Department of Export Agriculture

Tell us what to change or add.

Your name (optional)Your roleReview date

Continue a saved review

1. Check a decision

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

2. Try the inputs

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

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

3. Check each decision

1. Target export crops with weak enterprise returns 2. Choose what to handle first: feasible export-crop market development 3. Select processing stages with excessive spice losses 4. Choose what to handle first: crop-area combinations with weak productivity 5. Shortlist export crops suited to local soils and climate 6. Plan certified planting-material supply 7. Check emerging export-crop pest and disease patterns 8. Refer spice quality results outside applicable specifications 9. Compare rehabilitation and replanting of ageing crop stands 10. Target export-crop growers lacking technical support 11. Review grower evidence for requested certification 12. Appraise investments in grading drying and processing 13. Resolve broken links from export-crop lots to farms 14. Compare harvest windows against quality and market constraints 15. Compare shade water and soil adaptation practices 16. Check establishment outcomes after crop-development assistance 17. Select export-crop research questions with evidence gaps 18. Choose what to handle first: erosion control in sloping export-crop lands 19. Compare and correct differences in inconsistent crop names and varieties 20. Compare export-crop support outcomes beyond participation

1. Target export crops with weak enterprise returnsDEC-DP09-001 · Crop economics · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Target export crops with weak enterprise returns.

Verified published formula · Enterprise gross margin

Method. Gross margin = saleable output × realized price − variable costs. Divide by matching hectares for margin/ha; variable-cost break-even price = variable costs / output.

Next step. Review evidence. Choose a feasible enterprise option, adjust variable inputs, or review price and yield risk.

Inputs, example and sources

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Farm Management for Asia A Systems Approach
Institution publication · Chapter 4, Gross margin and section 4.7.1

Per-hectare and variable-cost break-even outputs are algebraic rearrangements. Local costs, prices and interpretation still need confirmation.

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

Analysis inputs. Saleable output [kg]; Realized price [LKR/kg]; Variable costs [LKR]; Matching crop area [ha]

Other required evidence. Crop; harvested output; realized prices; variable costs; cultivated hectares.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — crop economics · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Saleable output	3,800	kg
Realized price	112	LKR/kg
Variable costs	295,000	LKR
Matching crop area	1	ha
Enterprise gross margin	130,600	LKR
Gross margin per hectare	130,600	LKR/ha
Variable-cost break-even price	77.632	LKR/kg

Keep fixed costs, family-labour opportunity cost, taxes and financing identifiable. Gross margin is not net profit.

Proposed checking role. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist.

After the action. Realized gross margin and downside outcomes on the same basis.

FAO enterprise and activity budgeting — Institution publication. Section4 enterprise and activity budgeting. Published enterprise gross margin/revenue and variable-cost distinction.
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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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: feasible export-crop market developmentDEC-DP09-002 · Market opportunities · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize feasible export-crop market development.

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. Crop-market options; demand evidence; quality requirements; access costs; risks.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Planting-material upgrade · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Option cost	1,500,000	LKR
Available budget	1,800,000	LKR
Mandatory constraints	Met
Expected benefit and its evidence	Prioritize feasible export-crop market development; Crop-market options and demand evidence 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. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Select processing stages with excessive spice lossesDEC-DP09-003 · Post-harvest quality · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select processing stages with excessive spice losses.

Validation required

Method. Unaccounted = input − saleable output − usable by-products − closing stock − transfers out. Share =100 × unaccounted / input.

Next step. Review evidence. Target the loss stage, compare prevention options, or improve missing measurement.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Batch input on stated moisture basis [kg]; Saleable output [kg]; Usable by-product [kg]; Closing stock [kg]; Documented transfers out [kg]

Other required evidence. Crop batch; input weight; output weight; moisture; rejection cause; stage.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — post-harvest quality · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Batch input on stated moisture basis	1,200	kg
Saleable output	970	kg
Usable by-product	85	kg
Closing stock	45	kg
Documented transfers out	20	kg
Unaccounted physical share	6.667	%
Unaccounted mass	80	kg

Use a consistent moisture basis and process boundary. Unaccounted mass is not automatically avoidable food loss or spoilage.

Proposed checking role. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist.

After the action. Verified physical loss and quality loss on comparable batches.

FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Choose what to handle first: crop-area combinations with weak productivityDEC-DP09-004 · Crop productivity · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prioritize crop-area combinations with weak productivity.

Validation required

Method. Harvested crop output / Matching harvested crop area, for the same product, process and period.

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Harvested crop output [kg]; Matching harvested crop area [ha]

Other required evidence. Crop; harvested kilograms; mature hectares; age; season; production system.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — crop productivity · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Harvested crop output	19,780	kg
Matching harvested crop area	5.4	ha
Crop yield	3,662.963	kg/ha

Proposed checking role. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Shortlist export crops suited to local soils and climateDEC-DP09-005 · Crop suitability · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Shortlist export crops suited to local soils and climate.

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. Crop requirements; Crop requirements evidence reference; soil; soil evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; temperature; temperature evidence reference; slope; slope evidence reference; shade; shade evidence reference; water access; water access evidence reference

Other required evidence. Crop requirements; soil; rainfall; temperature; slope; shade; water access.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — crop suitability · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Crop requirements	Missing
Crop requirements evidence reference
soil	Documented
soil evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
rainfall	Documented
rainfall evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
temperature	Documented
temperature evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
slope	Documented
slope evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
shade	Documented
shade evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
water access	Documented
water access evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Plan certified planting-material supplyDEC-DP09-006 · Planting materials · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Plan certified planting-material supply.

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

Other required evidence. Crop variety; usable nursery stock; approved demand; lead time; health status.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — planting materials · Laggala Pallegama

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

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. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Check emerging export-crop pest and disease patternsDEC-DP09-007 · Plant health · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate emerging export-crop pest and disease patterns.

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 [affected plants per 100 inspected]; Later/comparison value [affected plants per 100 inspected]

Other required evidence. Crop; symptoms; diagnostic result; affected hectares; survey effort; baseline.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — plant health · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Comparable reference value	100	affected plants per 100 inspected
Later/comparison value	90	affected plants per 100 inspected
Difference	-10	affected plants per 100 inspected
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Refer spice quality results outside applicable specificationsDEC-DP09-008 · Quality compliance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer spice quality results outside applicable specifications.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Parameter and applicable use; Measured result [%]; Example lower comparison bound [%]; Example upper comparison bound [%]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis

Other required evidence. Lot; moisture; contaminants; analytical method; buyer specification; unit.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — quality compliance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parameter and applicable use	Spice-lot moisture
Measured result	13.5	%
Example lower comparison bound	0	%
Example upper comparison bound	12	%
Original and limit unit	%
Sampling and analytical method/version	Sample laboratory method
Limit source, version and use	Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit
Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match	Yes
Result is below a reporting/detection limit	No
Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis	Sample stated sampling/averaging basis
Measured value	13.5	%

Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero.

Proposed checking role. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Compare rehabilitation and replanting of ageing crop standsDEC-DP09-009 · Replanting · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare rehabilitation and replanting of ageing crop stands.

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. Stand age; yield; disease; replant cost; income gap; options.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Planting-material upgrade · 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 rehabilitation and replanting of ageing crop stands; Stand age and yield 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. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Target export-crop growers lacking technical supportDEC-DP09-010 · Extension coverage · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Target export-crop growers lacking technical support.

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

Other required evidence. Grower register; needs; extension visits; adoption evidence; crop area.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — extension coverage · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Review grower evidence for requested certificationDEC-DP09-011 · Certification readiness · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review grower evidence for requested certification.

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. Grower ID; Grower ID evidence reference; scheme version; scheme version evidence reference; production records; production records evidence reference; inspections; inspections evidence reference; traceability; traceability evidence reference; nonconformities; nonconformities evidence reference

Other required evidence. Grower ID; scheme version; production records; inspections; traceability; nonconformities.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — certification readiness · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Grower ID	Missing
Grower ID evidence reference
scheme version	Documented
scheme version evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
production records	Documented
production records evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
inspections	Documented
inspections evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
traceability	Documented
traceability evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
nonconformities	Documented
nonconformities evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Appraise investments in grading drying and processingDEC-DP09-012 · Value addition · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Appraise investments in grading drying and processing.

Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV

Method. NPV = −initial investment + sum of year1…5 net cash flows discounted at the stated annual rate, including residual value once in year5.

Next step. Review evidence. Compare feasible investments, adjust the scope, or defer pending finance/evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Guidelines for defining financial economic environmental and social information
Institution publication · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value

The five-year horizon, discount rate and cash assumptions are local settings. Verification does not approve an investment or loan.

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

Analysis inputs. Initial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%]

Other required evidence. Equipment cost; throughput; operating costs; product prices; losses; discount rate.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — value addition · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Initial investment	2,400,000	LKR
Net cash flow year1	400,000	LKR
Net cash flow year2	550,000	LKR
Net cash flow year3	680,000	LKR
Net cash flow year4	720,000	LKR
Net cash flow year5	760,000	LKR
Residual value at end of year5	120,000	LKR
Example discount rate	8	%
Five-year net present value	109,847.353	LKR

Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows.

Proposed checking role. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist.

After the action. Realized cash flows, benefits and costs versus the approved appraisal.

FAO Guidelines for financial economic environmental and social information — Institution publication. Section2 discounted cash-flow analysis and NPV. Published discounted cash-flow method; local rate, horizon and cash assumptions are 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Resolve broken links from export-crop lots to farmsDEC-DP09-013 · Traceability · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve broken links from export-crop lots to farms.

Validation required

Method. Follow recorded upstream→downstream links within the same scope and period. Flag missing links; a confirmed defect identifies downstream linked candidates for authorized investigation.

Next step. Investigate linked downstream lot. 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. Upstream lot/source reference; Downstream lot/batch reference; Exact upstream source version; Recorded upstream issue

Other required evidence. Farm ID; harvest lot; processor lot; transfer records; shipment ID.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — traceability · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Upstream lot/source reference	EXAMPLE-ROOT
Downstream lot/batch reference	2025-BATCH-1
Exact upstream source version	Sample version1
Recorded upstream issue	Confirmed defect
Broken or affected lineage	1	items

Recorded lineage is not proof of product identity or recall authority. Preserve multi-source batches, transfers and versions; do not clear unlinked lots as safe.

Proposed checking role. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Compare harvest windows against quality and market constraintsDEC-DP09-014 · Harvest timing · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare harvest windows against quality and market constraints.

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. Crop maturity; weather; labour; processing capacity; buyer delivery window.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — harvest timing · 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. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Compare shade water and soil adaptation practicesDEC-DP09-015 · Climate adaptation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare shade water and soil adaptation practices.

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. Crop exposure; practice costs; water requirement; yield evidence; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Planting-material upgrade · 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 shade water and soil adaptation practices; Crop exposure and practice costs 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. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Check establishment outcomes after crop-development assistanceDEC-DP09-016 · Subsidy follow-up · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Verify establishment outcomes after crop-development assistance.

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. Assistance cohort; planted hectares; survival; follow-up date; inspection evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — subsidy follow-up · 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. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Select export-crop research questions with evidence gapsDEC-DP09-017 · Research priorities · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Select export-crop research questions with evidence gaps.

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. Crop constraints; trial evidence; grower demand; research cost; applicability.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Planting-material upgrade · 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	Select export-crop research questions with evidence gaps; Crop constraints and trial evidence 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. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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. Choose what to handle first: erosion control in sloping export-crop landsDEC-DP09-018 · Soil conservation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize erosion control in sloping export-crop lands.

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. Erosivity; soil erodibility; slope; cover; conservation practices; site.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — soil conservation · 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. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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 and correct differences in inconsistent crop names and varietiesDEC-DP09-019 · Grower records · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Reconcile inconsistent crop names and varieties.

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. Source crop label; Source crop label evidence reference; scientific name; scientific name evidence reference; variety registry; variety registry evidence reference; definition; definition evidence reference; steward decision; steward decision evidence reference

Other required evidence. Source crop label; scientific name; variety registry; definition; steward decision.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — grower records · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Source crop label	Missing
Source crop label evidence reference
scientific name	Documented
scientific name evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
variety registry	Documented
variety registry evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
definition	Documented
definition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
steward decision	Documented
steward decision evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality 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

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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

20. Compare export-crop support outcomes beyond participationDEC-DP09-020 · Programme evaluation · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Evaluate export-crop support outcomes beyond participation.

Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

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

Analysis inputs. Treatment Enterprise gross margin before [LKR/ha]; Treatment Enterprise gross margin after [LKR/ha]; Comparison Enterprise gross margin before [LKR/ha]; Comparison Enterprise gross margin after [LKR/ha]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Supported growers; baseline margin; follow-up margin; comparison group; market conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — programme evaluation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Enterprise gross margin before	420,000	LKR/ha
Treatment Enterprise gross margin after	590,000	LKR/ha
Comparison Enterprise gross margin before	390,000	LKR/ha
Comparison Enterprise gross margin after	460,000	LKR/ha
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Enterprise gross margin /example matching definition1
Difference in changes	100,000	LKR/ha

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

Proposed checking role. Export-crop agronomist and market/quality specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

Export Agriculture research division — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Sri Lanka Agriculture Enterprise Architecture 1.3 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO food loss measurement — 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.

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

4. Existing data forms for your institution

Check which existing source fields can supply the decision inputs.

Crop categories · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 816a25e50e472c74

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
category Id	Confirm if needed	No
description	Confirm if needed	No

Crop sub categories · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 9ec496a5e0c6aadf

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
description	Confirm if needed	No
sub Category Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Category DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Category DTO / category Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Category DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No

Crops · Crop Production

Existing form reference: f6a51a2d7e2080bc

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Id	Confirm if needed	No
description	Confirm if needed	No
crop Type	Confirm if needed	No
scientific Name	Confirm if needed	No
optimum Temperature	Confirm if needed	No
nursery Establishment Period	Confirm if needed	No
harvesting	Confirm if needed	No
family	Confirm if needed	No
is Multi Pick	Confirm if needed	No
micro Green Available	Confirm if needed	No
crop Sub Category DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Sub Category DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No
crop Sub Category DTO / sub Category Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Sub Category DTO / crop Category DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Sub Category DTO / crop Category DTO / category Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Sub Category DTO / crop Category DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No
soil Type DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
soil Type DTO / soil Type Code	Confirm if needed	No
soil Type DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No
soil Type DTO / created Date	Confirm if needed	No
soil Type DTO / modified Date	Confirm if needed	No
is Plantation Crop	Confirm if needed	No
annual Rainfall	Confirm if needed	No
altitude	Confirm if needed	No
suitable Cultivation Areas	Confirm if needed	No
soil Characteristics	Confirm if needed	No
soil Ph Range	Confirm if needed	No
nursery Management	Confirm if needed	No
land Preparation	Confirm if needed	No
seeding Transplanting Planting	Confirm if needed	No
planting Time	Confirm if needed	No
seed Or Cutting Requirement	Confirm if needed	No
spacing	Confirm if needed	No

Crop varieties · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 4407b75d4bb7f035

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
variety Id	Confirm if needed	No
variety Name	Confirm if needed	No
variety Description	Confirm if needed	No
pericarp Color / id	Confirm if needed	No
pericarp Color / code	Confirm if needed	No
pericarp Color / description	Confirm if needed	No
grain Size	Confirm if needed	No
average Yield	Confirm if needed	No
maturity Time	Confirm if needed	No
is Imported	Confirm if needed	No
is Multi Pick	Confirm if needed	No
grain Color	Confirm if needed	No
bearing Period In Days	Confirm if needed	No
scientific Name	Confirm if needed	No
released Year	Confirm if needed	No
duration Between Two Picks	Confirm if needed	No
edible Part Shape	Confirm if needed	No
seed Requirement	Confirm if needed	No
spacing	Confirm if needed	No
soil Problems	Confirm if needed	No
number Of Pics	Confirm if needed	No
farmer Yield	Confirm if needed	No
research Yield	Confirm if needed	No
grain Quality	Confirm if needed	No
croplook Variety Id	Confirm if needed	No
variety Type	Confirm if needed	No
pollination Type	Confirm if needed	No
grain Type / id	Confirm if needed	No
grain Type / code	Confirm if needed	No
grain Type / description	Confirm if needed	No
age Type	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / scientific Name	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / is Multi Pick	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Sub Category DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Sub Category DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Sub Category DTO / sub Category Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Sub Category DTO / crop Category DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Sub Category DTO / crop Category DTO / category Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Sub Category DTO / crop Category DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No
harti Items DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
harti Items DTO / item Num	Confirm if needed	No
harti Items DTO / item Name	Confirm if needed	No
harti Items DTO / group Name	Confirm if needed	No
file Resource DTOList	Confirm if needed	No
discontinued	Confirm if needed	No
discontinued Date	Confirm if needed	No
research Yield Dry Weight	Confirm if needed	No
average Yield Dry Weight	Confirm if needed	No
paddy Variety Type	Confirm if needed	No
grain Category / id	Confirm if needed	No
grain Category / code	Confirm if needed	No
grain Category / description	Confirm if needed	No
farmer Selection	Confirm if needed	No
plant Growth	Confirm if needed	No
age Group / id	Confirm if needed	No
age Group / code	Confirm if needed	No
age Group / description	Confirm if needed	No
age Group / crop / id	Confirm if needed	No
age Group / crop / description	Confirm if needed	No
aromatic	Confirm if needed	No
low Gi	Confirm if needed	No
sticky	Confirm if needed	No
soft Cook Rice	Confirm if needed	No
general Cultivation	Confirm if needed	No
wz Only	Confirm if needed	No
salinity Areas	Confirm if needed	No
iron Toxicity	Confirm if needed	No
drought Tolerant	Confirm if needed	No
heat Tolerant	Confirm if needed	No
submergence Tolerant	Confirm if needed	No
cold Tolerant	Confirm if needed	No
acid Sulfate	Confirm if needed	No
upland	Confirm if needed	No
seed Testa Color	Confirm if needed	No
harvest In Many Picks	Confirm if needed	No
pod Fruit Bulb Size Unit	Confirm if needed	No
pod Fruit Bulb Color	Confirm if needed	No
pest Disease Resistance	Confirm if needed	No
number Of Seed For Pod	Confirm if needed	No
number Of Bulbs	Confirm if needed	No
pod Fruit Bulb Size	Confirm if needed	No
chilli Pungency Level	Confirm if needed	No
special Characteristics	Confirm if needed	No
harvest To Seed	Confirm if needed	No
multi Pick Per Variety DTOList	Confirm if needed	No
grain Category	Confirm if needed	No
age Group	Confirm if needed	No
pericarp Color	Confirm if needed	No
grain Type	Confirm if needed	No
pod Fruit Bulb Color / id	Confirm if needed	No
pod Fruit Bulb Color / code	Confirm if needed	No
pod Fruit Bulb Color / description	Confirm if needed	No
harti Items DTO	Confirm if needed	No

Export crops · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 31afd4eae072f89f

Field	Unit	Required

Export earnings by sector, 2015–2026 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: b3d77003d1866be4

Field	Unit	Required
Sector	Confirm if needed	No
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Export earnings	USD million	No
Reporting basis	Confirm if needed	No

Export contribution by sector, 2015–2026 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: 1084af35eff25970

Field	Unit	Required
Sector	Confirm if needed	No
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Export contribution	%	No
Reporting basis	Confirm if needed	No

Major export markets, 2025 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: d897e621e1f5fb87

Field	Unit	Required
Sector	Confirm if needed	No
Market	Confirm if needed	No
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Export earnings	USD million	No

Export-crop extent by district, 2025 · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 0469851df9c956b2

Field	Unit	Required
District	Confirm if needed	No
Crop	Confirm if needed	No
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Value	ha	No
Unit	Confirm if needed	No
Geography level	Confirm if needed	No
Measure basis	Confirm if needed	No

Export-crop production by district, 2025 · Crop Production

Existing form reference: eb9e56b9ee530763

Field	Unit	Required
District	Confirm if needed	No
Crop	Confirm if needed	No
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Value	MT	No
Unit	Confirm if needed	No
Geography level	Confirm if needed	No
Measure basis	Confirm if needed	No

Export-crop production, 2015–2025 · Crop Production

Existing form reference: edf9c4c0c881868d

Field	Unit	Required
Crop	Confirm if needed	No
Period	Confirm if needed	No
Production	MT	No
Unit	Confirm if needed	No
Period basis	Confirm if needed	No

5. Documents and images

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

Open this screen for Department of Export Agriculture See the presentation example

Department of Export Agriculture Documents and images prototype screen — Department of Export Agriculture. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

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

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

What your institution needs to confirm

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

6. Data structure management

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

Open this screen for Department of Export Agriculture See the presentation example

Department of Export Agriculture Data structure management prototype screen — Department of Export Agriculture. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

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

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

What your institution needs to confirm

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

7. Users and access

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

Open this screen for Department of Export Agriculture See the presentation example

Department of Export Agriculture Users and access prototype screen — Department of Export Agriculture. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

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

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

What your institution needs to confirm

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

9. Anything else we should change?

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

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

Department of Export Agriculture

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?