Project Management Unit

1. Choose what to handle first: project outputs awaiting independent verificationDEC-DP11-001 · Output verification · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize project outputs awaiting independent verification.

Validation required

Method. 100 × verified completed members / original unique cohort. Keep unknown follow-up separate; stages are nested, not independent populations.

Next step. Review evidence. Address stage bottlenecks, follow up dropouts, or revise service delivery.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Unique original cohort entrants [cases]; Entrants reviewed [cases]; Entrants with verified completion [cases]; Entrants with unknown follow-up [cases]

Other required evidence. Output ID; target; submitted quantity; accepted quantity; evidence; reviewer.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — output verification · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Unique original cohort entrants	180	cases
Entrants reviewed	132	cases
Entrants with verified completion	96	cases
Entrants with unknown follow-up	12	cases
Verified completion share	53.333	%
Not verified complete	84	cases

Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people.

Proposed checking role. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

After the action. Verified progression, waiting times and outcomes for the same cohort.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Check spending ahead of verified physical progressDEC-DP11-002 · Delivery performance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate spending ahead of verified physical progress (proposed; scope pending).

Validation required

Method. 100 × spending/phased budget, and verified−planned physical progress. Do not subtract LKR from physical progress, infer earned value or equate expenditure with outcomes.

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Phased budget for the period [LKR]; Actual spending [LKR]; Planned physical progress [%]; Independently verified physical progress [%]

Other required evidence. Activity; phased budget; actual expenditure; planned progress; verified progress.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — delivery performance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Phased budget for the period	1,800,000	LKR
Actual spending	1,200,000	LKR
Planned physical progress	60	%
Independently verified physical progress	40	%
Spending against phased budget	66.667	%
Verified physical progress	40	%
Verified minus planned progress	-20	percentage points

Proposed checking role. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

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

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Resolve source reviews blocking required project reportsDEC-DP11-003 · Reporting bottlenecks · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve source reviews blocking required project reports.

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. Report deadline; required dataset; submission status; review age; responsible owner.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — reporting bottlenecks · 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. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Coordinate overlapping interventions at the same sitesDEC-DP11-004 · Intervention overlap · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Coordinate overlapping interventions at the same sites.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Permitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit

Other required evidence. Site ID; intervention footprint; component; schedule; beneficiary IDs; purpose.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — intervention overlap · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Permitted recipient/service reference	Laggala Pallegama — intervention overlap
Support purpose	Sample seasonal input support
Earlier support period begins	2025-01-01
Earlier support period ends	2025-06-30
Other support period begins	2025-05-01
Other support period ends	2025-08-31
Same purpose and qualifying unit	Yes
Overlapping days	61	days

Proposed checking role. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

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

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Compare work-plan alternatives within programme constraintsDEC-DP11-005 · Annual planning · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare work-plan alternatives within programme constraints.

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. Activities; costs; dependencies; outcomes; capacity; safeguards; funding ceiling.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Watershed treatment · 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 work-plan alternatives within programme constraints; Activities and 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. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Find unfunded activities and unfulfilled co-financingDEC-DP11-006 · Funding commitments · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify unfunded activities and unfulfilled co-financing (proposed; scope pending).

Validation required

Method. Unfunded = need − commitments. Undisbursed = commitments − disbursements. Unspent = disbursements − eligible spending.

Next step. Review unfunded need. Resolve funding gaps, release only authorized commitments, or revise the finance plan.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Approved financing need [LKR]; Confirmed commitments [LKR]; Funds actually disbursed [LKR]; Verified eligible expenditure [LKR]

Other required evidence. Approved cost; confirmed commitments; disbursements; expenditure; currency; funding terms.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — funding commitments · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Approved financing need	3,500,000	LKR
Confirmed commitments	2,650,000	LKR
Funds actually disbursed	1,640,000	LKR
Verified eligible expenditure	1,200,000	LKR
Unfunded need	850,000	LKR
Committed but not disbursed	1,010,000	LKR
Disbursed but not spent	440,000	LKR

Keep commitments, cash receipts, expenditure and verified physical outputs separate. Negative balances flag overcommitment or reconciliation; no automatic accounting adjustment.

Proposed checking role. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

After the action. Verified funding, spend and deliverables reconciled without double counting.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Choose what to handle first: procurements on the implementation critical pathDEC-DP11-007 · Procurement scheduling · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize procurements on the implementation critical path (proposed; scope pending).

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. Procurement package; lead time; milestones; dependencies; approvals; delivery windows.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — procurement scheduling · 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. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Escalate contract milestone delays and unresolved deliverablesDEC-DP11-008 · Contract performance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Escalate contract milestone delays and unresolved deliverables (proposed; scope pending).

Validation required

Method. Observed date minus planned date in calendar days. Missing actual dates are pending, not zero delay. Approved working-day rules require a defined calendar.

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Planned milestone/sowing date; Observed completion/sowing date

Other required evidence. Contract version; milestone dates; actual delivery; acceptance; conditions; contractor.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — contract performance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Planned milestone/sowing date	2025-06-01
Observed completion/sowing date	2025-06-09
Calendar date difference	8	days

Proposed checking role. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

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

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Refer unresolved environmental and social risksDEC-DP11-009 · Safeguards · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer unresolved environmental and social risks.

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. Activity scope; Activity scope evidence reference; screening; screening evidence reference; affected people; affected people evidence reference; safeguards; safeguards evidence reference; mitigations; mitigations evidence reference; reviewer; reviewer evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Activity scope; screening; affected people; safeguards; mitigations; reviewer; conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — safeguards · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Activity scope	Missing
Activity scope evidence reference
screening	Documented
screening evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
affected people	Documented
affected people evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
safeguards	Documented
safeguards evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
mitigations	Documented
mitigations evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
reviewer	Documented
reviewer evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
conditions	Documented
conditions 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. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Escalate overdue programme grievances through approved channelsDEC-DP11-010 · Grievances · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Escalate overdue programme grievances through approved channels.

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. Case ID; confidential category; received date; due date; response; escalation owner.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — grievances · 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. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Target gaps in access to project benefitsDEC-DP11-011 · Participation equity · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Target gaps in access to project benefits.

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

Other required evidence. Eligible population frame; unique recipients; consented group attributes; location; benefit type.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — participation equity · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Compare material scope-change alternatives before approvalDEC-DP11-012 · Change control · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare material scope-change alternatives before approval.

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. Baseline scope; proposed change; cost; schedule; benefits; consultations; constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Watershed treatment · 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 material scope-change alternatives before approval; Baseline scope and proposed change 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. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Block affected work with unmet mandatory approval conditionsDEC-DP11-013 · Decision conditions · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Block affected work with unmet mandatory approval conditions.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. 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. Decision version; Decision version evidence reference; required approvals; required approvals evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference; completion evidence; completion evidence evidence reference; appointed authority; appointed authority evidence reference

Other required evidence. Decision version; required approvals; conditions; completion evidence; appointed authority.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — decision conditions · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Decision version	Missing
Decision version evidence reference
required approvals	Documented
required approvals evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
conditions	Documented
conditions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
completion evidence	Documented
completion evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
appointed authority	Documented
appointed authority 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. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Resolve dependency conflicts between implementing partnersDEC-DP11-014 · Partner coordination · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Resolve dependency conflicts between implementing partners.

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. Partner tasks; deliverables; due dates; dependencies; capacity; consultation responses.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — partner coordination · 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. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Check verified programme outcomes and attribution limitsDEC-DP11-015 · Outcome evaluation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Assess verified programme outcomes and attribution limits.

Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

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

Analysis inputs. Treatment Verified outcome indicator before [specified outcome unit]; Treatment Verified outcome indicator after [specified outcome unit]; Comparison Verified outcome indicator before [specified outcome unit]; Comparison Verified outcome indicator after [specified outcome unit]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Baseline indicators; follow-up; comparison; sampling; external factors; evaluation design.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — outcome evaluation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Verified outcome indicator before	42	specified outcome unit
Treatment Verified outcome indicator after	59	specified outcome unit
Comparison Verified outcome indicator before	39	specified outcome unit
Comparison Verified outcome indicator after	46	specified outcome unit
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Verified outcome indicator /example matching definition1
Difference in changes	10	specified outcome unit

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

Proposed checking role. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Compare financial consequences of implementation scenariosDEC-DP11-016 · Risk financing · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare financial consequences of implementation scenarios (proposed; scope pending).

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. Scenario costs; delays; benefits; residual risks; cash-flow dates; discount rate.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — risk financing · 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. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Find assets lacking verified maintenance and ownership arrangementsDEC-DP11-017 · Asset handover · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Identify assets lacking verified maintenance and ownership arrangements.

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. Asset ID; Asset ID evidence reference; acceptance; acceptance evidence reference; owner; owner evidence reference; maintenance plan; maintenance plan evidence reference; budget; budget evidence reference; training; training evidence reference; handover conditions; handover conditions evidence reference

Other required evidence. Asset ID; acceptance; owner; maintenance plan; budget; training; handover conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — asset handover · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Asset ID	Missing
Asset ID evidence reference
acceptance	Documented
acceptance evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
owner	Documented
owner evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
maintenance plan	Documented
maintenance plan evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
budget	Documented
budget evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
training	Documented
training evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
handover conditions	Documented
handover conditions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

18. Select interventions for further testing or scalingDEC-DP11-018 · Learning and scaling · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Select interventions for further testing or scaling.

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. Verified outcomes; costs; context; adverse effects; evidence quality; transferability.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Watershed treatment · 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 interventions for further testing or scaling; Verified outcomes and 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. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Correct incomplete references in reporting evidence packagesDEC-DP11-019 · Evidence catalogue · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Correct incomplete references in reporting evidence packages.

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. Evidence ID; Evidence ID evidence reference; source version; source version evidence reference; period; period evidence reference; geography; geography evidence reference; license; license evidence reference; reviewer; reviewer evidence reference; lineage; lineage evidence reference

Other required evidence. Evidence ID; source version; period; geography; license; reviewer; lineage.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — evidence catalogue · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Evidence ID	Missing
Evidence ID evidence reference
source version	Documented
source version evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
period	Documented
period evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
geography	Documented
geography evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
license	Documented
license evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
reviewer	Documented
reviewer evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
lineage	Documented
lineage 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. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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. Resolve outstanding financial technical and safeguard obligationsDEC-DP11-020 · Project closure · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve outstanding financial technical and safeguard obligations.

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. Closure checklist; Closure checklist evidence reference; contracts; contracts evidence reference; finances; finances evidence reference; assets; assets evidence reference; unresolved cases; unresolved cases evidence reference; outcome evidence; outcome evidence evidence reference

Other required evidence. Closure checklist; contracts; finances; assets; unresolved cases; outcome evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — project closure · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Closure checklist	Missing
Closure checklist evidence reference
contracts	Documented
contracts evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
finances	Documented
finances evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
assets	Documented
assets evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
unresolved cases	Documented
unresolved cases evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
outcome evidence	Documented
outcome evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. PMU monitoring lead, technical lead and finance/safeguards reviewers as relevant.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice: difference-in-differences — Institution publication. Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Chapter 7; printed pages 129-141, especially 132-135. 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
Funding item	Confirm if needed	No
Instrument	Confirm if needed	No
Amount	USD	No
Currency	Confirm if needed	No
Date	Confirm if needed	No
Basis	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?

Project Management Unit

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?