CIFOR-ICRAF and Research Partners

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. Choose what to handle first: ecosystem types with comparable extent or condition decline 2. Select comparable soil-carbon monitoring locations 3. Improve surveys with insufficient sampling effort 4. Select defensible evidence for forest-carbon assessment 5. Compare landscape restoration opportunities 6. Compare locally suitable tree-crop combinations 7. Select study designs capable of answering intervention questions 8. Allocate field effort across environmental strata 9. Resolve incompatible ecological concepts before combining datasets 10. Require independent validation of landscape models 11. Check whether land-management changes affect water outcomes 12. Prepare separate physical service accounts 13. Compare livelihood conservation and water-management alternatives 14. Choose what to handle first: measurements driving carbon-estimate uncertainty 15. Resolve conflicting scientific and community observations 16. Review whose knowledge and outcomes research represents 17. Sustain observation coverage beyond initial field campaigns 18. Determine which research outputs can be shared 19. Choose what to handle first: evidence products requested by decision makers 20. Compare uptake and consequences of research recommendations

1. Choose what to handle first: ecosystem types with comparable extent or condition declineDEC-DP12-001 · Ecosystem change · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize ecosystem types with comparable extent or condition decline.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Ecosystem class; mapped extent; condition indicator; dates; method; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — ecosystem change · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

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

Institution and data context

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Select comparable soil-carbon monitoring locationsDEC-DP12-002 · Soil-carbon monitoring · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select comparable soil-carbon monitoring locations.

Verified published formula · Soil-carbon stock with volume correction

Method. (Organic carbon% /100) × bulk density × depth ×10000 × (1−coarse% /100). Confirm that the density and coarse-fragment conventions are mutually consistent.

Next step. Review evidence. Select further sampling or land-management appraisal based on valid stock comparisons.

Inputs, example and sources

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change · Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF
Institution publication · Section 4.3.3.5.4, equation 4.3.3, printed page 4.106, PDF page 18

The screen converts carbon percent to a fraction and uses the published coarse-fragment volume convention. Sampling and bulk-density conventions still need confirmation.

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

Analysis inputs. Soil organic carbon [%]; Fine-earth bulk-density basis [t/m³]; Sample depth [m]; Coarse-fragment volume fraction [%]; Sampling depth, design and density convention

Other required evidence. Carbon fraction; bulk density; depth; coarse fragments; sampling design; date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — soil-carbon monitoring · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Soil organic carbon	1.8	%
Fine-earth bulk-density basis	1.25	t/m³
Sample depth	0.3	m
Coarse-fragment volume fraction	12	%
Sampling depth, design and density convention	Sample matched depth and fine-earth convention
Soil-carbon stock	59.4	t C/ha

A carbon concentration is not a stock. Change comparisons require consistent depth/mass, sampling, density convention and uncertainty review.

Proposed checking role. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

After the action. Comparable measured soil-carbon stock and uncertainty.

IPCC 2006 Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 2 — Institution publication. Volume4 chapter2 sections2.2 and2.3.3. Published carbon-stock/change and soil-carbon framework; input conventions and local applicability require review.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Improve surveys with insufficient sampling effortDEC-DP12-003 · Biodiversity evidence · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Improve surveys with insufficient sampling effort.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Survey event; protocol; effort; taxa; detections; season; sampling frame.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — biodiversity evidence · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

GBIF biological survey publishing guide — Institution publication. Version1.0.2, sections5.4 to5.7 and7.3. Survey event, effort, protocol, sampling scope and non-detection context; not a population estimator.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Select defensible evidence for forest-carbon assessmentDEC-DP12-004 · Forest-carbon estimates · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select defensible evidence for forest-carbon assessment.

Verified published component · Carbon stock-difference component

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

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

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

Other required evidence. Inventory plots; tree measurements; allometry; pool coverage; carbon fraction; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — forest-carbon estimates · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

IPCC 2006 Guidelines Volume 4 Chapter 2 — Institution publication. Volume4 chapter2 sections2.2 and2.3.3. Published carbon-stock/change and soil-carbon framework; input conventions and local applicability require review.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Compare landscape restoration opportunitiesDEC-DP12-005 · Landscape restoration · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare landscape restoration opportunities.

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. Degradation; tenure; ecological potential; community priorities; costs; connectivity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Paired-site monitoring · 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 landscape restoration opportunities; Degradation and tenure 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. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Compare locally suitable tree-crop combinationsDEC-DP12-006 · Agroforestry design · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare locally suitable tree-crop combinations.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. Shortlist technically feasible alternatives, reject exclusions, or request site evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Species traits; Species traits evidence reference; crop needs; crop needs evidence reference; soil; soil evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; shade; shade evidence reference; farmer objectives; farmer objectives evidence reference; market access; market access evidence reference

Other required evidence. Species traits; crop needs; soil; rainfall; shade; farmer objectives; market access.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — agroforestry design · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Species traits	Missing
Species traits evidence reference
crop needs	Documented
crop needs evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
soil	Documented
soil evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
rainfall	Documented
rainfall evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
shade	Documented
shade evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
farmer objectives	Documented
farmer objectives evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
market access	Documented
market 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. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Select study designs capable of answering intervention questionsDEC-DP12-007 · Research design · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select study designs capable of answering intervention questions.

Validation required

Method. Check whether the question has a defined outcome, appropriate study design, comparison, baseline/follow-up, sampling, confounding and attrition evidence. Do not manufacture an effect estimate from missing design information.

Next step. Complete the evidence. Continue, adapt, expand or stop a programme based on defensible outcome evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Hypothesis; Hypothesis evidence reference; treatment; treatment evidence reference; comparison; comparison evidence reference; baseline; baseline evidence reference; sample size; sample size evidence reference; confounders; confounders evidence reference; outcomes; outcomes evidence reference

Other required evidence. Hypothesis; treatment; comparison; baseline; sample size; confounders; outcomes.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — research design · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Hypothesis	Missing
Hypothesis evidence reference
treatment	Documented
treatment evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
comparison	Documented
comparison evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
baseline	Documented
baseline evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
sample size	Documented
sample size evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
confounders	Documented
confounders evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
outcomes	Documented
outcomes evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Study evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Allocate field effort across environmental strataDEC-DP12-008 · Sampling allocation · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Allocate field effort across environmental strata.

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. Sampling frame; strata; variance estimates; costs; access; target precision.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Paired-site monitoring · 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	Allocate field effort across environmental strata; Sampling frame and strata 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. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Resolve incompatible ecological concepts before combining datasetsDEC-DP12-009 · Data harmonization · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve incompatible ecological concepts before combining datasets.

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 variables; Source variables evidence reference; definitions; definitions evidence reference; units; units evidence reference; methods; methods evidence reference; taxonomic references; taxonomic references evidence reference; steward review; steward review evidence reference

Other required evidence. Source variables; definitions; units; methods; taxonomic references; steward review.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — data harmonization · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Source variables	Missing
Source variables evidence reference
definitions	Documented
definitions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
units	Documented
units evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
methods	Documented
methods evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
taxonomic references	Documented
taxonomic references evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
steward review	Documented
steward review 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. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Require independent validation of landscape modelsDEC-DP12-010 · Model validation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Require independent validation of landscape models.

Validation required

Method. Reproduced minus expected result, within an explicitly supplied absolute tolerance, using the same exact input/method versions and a separate checker. Retain originals, code, parameters and environment evidence.

Next step. Investigate reproduction difference. Accept reproducible evidence for review, investigate differences, or withhold an unsupported result.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Earlier/source value [m³/season]; Independently reproduced value [m³/season]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [m³/season]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer

Other required evidence. Model version; training data; held-out validation; parameters; performance; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — model validation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Earlier/source value	100	m³/season
Independently reproduced value	90	m³/season
Original measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Comparison measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Compared measure and definition	Sample comparable m³/season measure; same input scope
Documented absolute comparison tolerance	0.01	m³/season
Expected input/method version	Sample input1 /method1
Reproduced input/method version	Sample input1 /method1
Original result creator	Preparation officer
Independent reproducer	Independent checking officer
Difference	-10	m³/season
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

After the action. Independent reproduction within the approved tolerance.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Check whether land-management changes affect water outcomesDEC-DP12-011 · Hydrological evidence · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Assess whether land-management changes affect water outcomes.

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 Seasonal streamflow volume before [m³/season]; Treatment Seasonal streamflow volume after [m³/season]; Comparison Seasonal streamflow volume before [m³/season]; Comparison Seasonal streamflow volume after [m³/season]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Treatment sites; control catchments; rainfall; streamflow; baseline; follow-up.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — hydrological evidence · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Seasonal streamflow volume before	42	m³/season
Treatment Seasonal streamflow volume after	59	m³/season
Comparison Seasonal streamflow volume before	39	m³/season
Comparison Seasonal streamflow volume after	46	m³/season
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Seasonal streamflow volume /example matching definition1
Difference in changes	10	m³/season

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

Proposed checking role. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Prepare separate physical service accountsDEC-DP12-012 · Ecosystem services · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prepare separate physical service accounts.

Validation required

Method. Closing extent = opening + additions − reductions. Record the period service flow separately; do not add a flow to an asset stock or multiply by an arbitrary PES rate.

Next step. Review evidence. Accept reviewed accounts, revise inconsistent entries, or commission missing valuation.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Opening ecosystem extent [ha]; Extent additions [ha]; Extent reductions [ha]; Measured service flow in the period [physical service units]; Service definition and flow unit; Separate monetary valuation method/price year

Other required evidence. Ecosystem extent; condition; service flow; beneficiaries; accounting area; period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — ecosystem services · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Opening ecosystem extent	750	ha
Extent additions	92	ha
Extent reductions	48	ha
Measured service flow in the period	1,200	physical service units
Service definition and flow unit	Sample retained physical service definition
Separate monetary valuation method/price year	Not provided
Closing ecosystem extent	794	ha
Physical service flow	1,200	physical service units

Keep extent, condition, physical service flows and monetary accounts distinct. A defensible valuation method, price year and accounting boundary are needed for monetary results.

Proposed checking role. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

After the action. Reconciled physical and monetary accounts with disclosed uncertainty.

UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — 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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Compare livelihood conservation and water-management alternativesDEC-DP12-013 · Trade-offs · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare livelihood conservation and water-management alternatives.

Validation required

Method. Budget minus option cost. Compare benefits, adverse effects and mandatory constraints separately; no weighted score or automatic best option.

Next step. Compare feasible trade-offs. Choose a feasible alternative with rationale and conditions, commission evidence, or defer.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Option cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects

Other required evidence. Options; ecological outcomes; livelihood effects; water effects; costs; constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Paired-site monitoring · 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 livelihood conservation and water-management alternatives; Options and ecological outcomes 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. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Choose what to handle first: measurements driving carbon-estimate uncertaintyDEC-DP12-014 · Carbon uncertainty · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prioritize measurements driving carbon-estimate uncertainty.

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. Pool estimates; parameter uncertainty; measurement error; sensitivity; sampling costs.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Paired-site monitoring · 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 measurements driving carbon-estimate uncertainty; Pool estimates and parameter uncertainty 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. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Resolve conflicting scientific and community observationsDEC-DP12-015 · Community knowledge · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve conflicting scientific and community observations.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Study question; community evidence; scientific evidence; consultations; consent; limitations.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — community knowledge · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Distinct relevant people invited	95	people
People who responded	68	people
Unresolved issues	16	issues
Proposal/version being discussed	Sample proposal1
Required participation channels accessible	Unknown
Response share	71.579	%
Unresolved issues	16	issues

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

Proposed checking role. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

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

Institution and data context

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Review whose knowledge and outcomes research representsDEC-DP12-016 · Gender and inclusion · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Review whose knowledge and outcomes research represents.

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

Other required evidence. Sampling frame; participation; consented group attributes; missing groups; research scope.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — gender and inclusion · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Sustain observation coverage beyond initial field campaignsDEC-DP12-017 · Long-term monitoring · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Sustain observation coverage beyond initial field campaigns.

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. Monitoring sites; required visits; funding; staff; access; equipment lifespan.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — long-term monitoring · 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. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Determine which research outputs can be sharedDEC-DP12-018 · Open science · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Determine which research outputs can be shared.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. Grant only scoped authorized access, aggregate/redact, refuse, or request approval.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Dataset rights; Dataset rights evidence reference; participant consent; participant consent evidence reference; sensitive species; sensitive species evidence reference; license; license evidence reference; publication approval; publication approval evidence reference

Other required evidence. Dataset rights; participant consent; sensitive species; license; publication approval.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — open science · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Dataset rights	Missing
Dataset rights evidence reference
participant consent	Documented
participant consent evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
sensitive species	Documented
sensitive species evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
license	Documented
license evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
publication approval	Documented
publication approval 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. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

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

Institution and data context

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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. Choose what to handle first: evidence products requested by decision makersDEC-DP12-019 · Knowledge products · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Prioritize evidence products requested by decision makers.

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. Decision requests; evidence maturity; product deadlines; analyst capacity; audience.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — knowledge products · 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. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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 uptake and consequences of research recommendationsDEC-DP12-020 · Research translation · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Evaluate uptake and consequences of research recommendations.

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 recommendation uptake before [%]; Treatment Verified recommendation uptake after [%]; Comparison Verified recommendation uptake before [%]; Comparison Verified recommendation uptake after [%]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Recommendation cohort; institutional decisions; implementation; outcomes; alternative explanations.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — research translation · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Relevant research lead, statistician and data steward.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF biological survey publishing guide — 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.

Forest Boundary · Administrative & Planning Areas

Existing form reference: 4e74cc389edc2305

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

Hydro Meteorological Stations · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 678a3e2dcda3b2df

Field	Unit	Required
Station Name	Confirm if needed	No
River Basin	Confirm if needed	No
Quadrant	Confirm if needed	No
X_Meter	Confirm if needed	No
Y_Meter	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No

Agro Meteorological Stations · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 4404e8d7fb7938f5

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

Rainguage Stations · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 34f3d59c2619b006

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

Rainfall · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 1d5963784380e5d7

Field	Unit	Required
stationid	Confirm if needed	No
date	Confirm if needed	No
rainfall_mm	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Synoptic Stations · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: c7953153a5200702

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

Climate Zones · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 2fd8102b7732d899

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

Hydro Zones · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 8645ce85db37fa03

Field	Unit	Required
Zone ID	Confirm if needed	No
Zone Area	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter	Confirm if needed	No
Hydro_Type	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Soil Groups · Soil & Land Management

Existing form reference: ce03929a51b9da64

Field	Unit	Required
name	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Forest area by type, 2018–2023 · Forest Resources

Existing form reference: 5d4e57af1e6712f1

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

FP124 financing · Programme Delivery

Existing form reference: e6af681e07c8efdc

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

Public source inventory, October 2026 · Source Coverage · Calculated

Existing form reference: a9b8c8efe788ee9a

Field	Unit	Required
Source identity	Confirm if needed	No
Source name	Confirm if needed	No
Publisher	Confirm if needed	No
Subject	Confirm if needed	No
Acquisition status	Confirm if needed	No
Captured rows	rows	No
Published rows	rows	No
Captured UTC	Confirm if needed	No
Coverage	Confirm if needed	No
Time field	Confirm if needed	No
Source URL	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 CIFOR-ICRAF and Research Partners See the presentation example

CIFOR-ICRAF and Research Partners Documents and images prototype screen — CIFOR-ICRAF and Research Partners. 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 CIFOR-ICRAF and Research Partners See the presentation example

CIFOR-ICRAF and Research Partners Data structure management prototype screen — CIFOR-ICRAF and Research Partners. 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 CIFOR-ICRAF and Research Partners See the presentation example

CIFOR-ICRAF and Research Partners Users and access prototype screen — CIFOR-ICRAF and Research Partners. 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.

CIFOR-ICRAF and Research Partners

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?