Sub-Watershed Integrated Delivery Teams

1. Follow up assignments lacking accepted field evidenceDEC-DP13-001 · Field assignments · Suggested priority: High

Follow up assignments lacking accepted field evidence.

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. Assignment ID; expected observation; submitted record; review status; due date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — field assignments · 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. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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. Schedule visits to unobserved monitoring sitesDEC-DP13-002 · Monitoring coverage · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Schedule visits to unobserved monitoring sites.

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

Other required evidence. Site frame; required visits; completed accepted visits; access; staff; season.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — monitoring coverage · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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

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

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

3. Choose what to handle first: unresolved community cases by agreed urgencyDEC-DP13-003 · Community cases · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize unresolved community cases by agreed urgency.

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; received date; urgency evidence; due date; response; accountable institution.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — community cases · 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. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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. Resolve missing or conflicting locations of field activitiesDEC-DP13-004 · Spatial verification · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve missing or conflicting locations of field activities.

Validation required

Method. Display supplied location separation with the two reported accuracies and coordinate-reference evidence. Do not treat a matched name or boundary overlap as confirmed identity.

Next step. Review evidence. Assign discrepancies to the custodian, accept documented corrections, or retain unresolved versions.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Measured separation between reported locations [m]; Reported source positional accuracy [m]; Reported comparison positional accuracy [m]; Coordinate reference and transformation evidence

Other required evidence. Activity ID; submitted coordinates; site boundary; GPS accuracy; field confirmation.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — spatial verification · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Measured separation between reported locations	32	m
Reported source positional accuracy	10	m
Reported comparison positional accuracy	15	m
Coordinate reference and transformation evidence	Sample matching CRS; transformation check required
Location separation	32	m

Proposed checking role. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

After the action. Discrepancies resolved with evidence and repeat error rate.

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

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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 community priorities for sub-watershed actionsDEC-DP13-005 · Watershed plans · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare community priorities for sub-watershed actions.

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. Sites; needs; costs; water links; safeguards; community preferences; constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Contour 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 community priorities for sub-watershed actions; Sites and needs 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. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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. Coordinate field works around seasonal and resource limitsDEC-DP13-006 · Intervention scheduling · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Coordinate field works around seasonal and resource limits.

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. Works; dependencies; rainfall windows; farming calendar; labour; approvals.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — intervention 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. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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. Target visits to restoration cohorts with uncertain survivalDEC-DP13-007 · Restoration follow-up · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Target visits to restoration cohorts with uncertain survival.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Planting cohort; counts; survival; replacements; last visit; follow-up date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — restoration follow-up · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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

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

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

8. Check completed soil and water conservation treatmentsDEC-DP13-008 · Conservation works · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Verify completed soil and water conservation treatments.

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. Work ID; Work ID evidence reference; design; design evidence reference; measured dimensions; measured dimensions evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; inspection; inspection evidence reference; acceptance conditions; acceptance conditions evidence reference

Other required evidence. Work ID; design; measured dimensions; location; inspection; acceptance conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — conservation works · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Work ID	Missing
Work ID evidence reference
design	Documented
design evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
measured dimensions	Documented
measured dimensions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
location	Documented
location evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
inspection	Documented
inspection evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
acceptance conditions	Documented
acceptance 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. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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 local water-shortage evidence to responsible institutionsDEC-DP13-009 · Water problems · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer local water-shortage evidence to responsible institutions.

Validation required

Method. Observed value minus Planned value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Planned value when the earlier value is positive.

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 value [m³/day]; Observed value [m³/day]

Other required evidence. Location; demand; supply observation; affected households; dates; source verification.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — water problems · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Planned value	100	m³/day
Observed value	90	m³/day
Difference	-10	m³/day
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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. Follow up adoption after field demonstrationsDEC-DP13-010 · Farmer practice uptake · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Follow up adoption after field demonstrations.

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. Participant cohort; attendance; practice; adoption evidence; follow-up date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — farmer practice uptake · 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. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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. Escalate verified hazard observations to competent authoritiesDEC-DP13-011 · Local hazards · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Escalate verified hazard observations to competent authorities.

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. Observation; Observation evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; time; time evidence reference; photographs; photographs evidence reference; exposed assets; exposed assets evidence reference; escalation protocol; escalation protocol evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Observation; location; time; photographs; exposed assets; escalation protocol.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — local hazards · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Observation	Missing
Observation evidence reference
location	Documented
location evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
time	Documented
time evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
photographs	Documented
photographs evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
exposed assets	Documented
exposed assets evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
escalation protocol	Documented
escalation protocol evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Documented unresolved critical condition	Unknown
Evidence observation date	2025-06-30
Existing control and its evidence	Sample documented control
Competent recipient	Responsible specialist / duty authority
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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. Redistribute assignments where field workload exceeds capacityDEC-DP13-012 · Team workload · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Redistribute assignments where field workload exceeds capacity.

Validation required

Method. Usable capacity = rated capacity − documented unavailable capacity. Surplus/shortfall = usable − matching demand.

Next step. Review capacity shortfall. Redistribute usable resources, propose expansion, or manage demand within authorized limits.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Demand in the selected period [staff hours]; Rated capacity for that period [staff hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [staff hours]

Other required evidence. Task hours; travel time; staff skills; available hours; due dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — team workload · Laggala Pallegama

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

Match peak/average basis, time window, skill, staffing, accessibility and other binding constraints. One aggregate capacity does not override a safety constraint.

Proposed checking role. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

After the action. Actual usable capacity, unmet demand and service quality.

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

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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

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

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

13. Check safeguards before starting field interventionsDEC-DP13-013 · Safeguard conditions · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Check safeguards before starting field interventions.

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. Site approval; Site approval evidence reference; consent; consent evidence reference; safeguards; safeguards evidence reference; unresolved conditions; unresolved conditions evidence reference; evidence; evidence evidence reference; responsible reviewer; responsible reviewer evidence reference

Other required evidence. Site approval; consent; safeguards; unresolved conditions; evidence; responsible reviewer.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — safeguard conditions · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Site approval	Missing
Site approval evidence reference
consent	Documented
consent evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
safeguards	Documented
safeguards evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
unresolved conditions	Documented
unresolved conditions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
evidence	Documented
evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
responsible reviewer	Documented
responsible reviewer 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. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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. Plan shared field equipment and supply availabilityDEC-DP13-014 · Equipment logistics · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Plan shared field equipment and supply availability.

Validation required

Method. Usable = physical−quarantined−expired (non-overlapping groups). Available = usable−commitments. Additional gap = max(0, new demand−available).

Next step. Review replenishment gap. Reorder approved quantities, redistribute stock, or quarantine affected lots.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Physical stock [equipment units]; Quarantined stock [equipment units]; Expired stock [equipment units]; Committed usable stock [equipment units]; Additional demand [equipment units]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days]

Other required evidence. Equipment ID; reservations; condition; usable stock; field schedule; lead time.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — equipment logistics · Laggala Pallegama

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

Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment.

Proposed checking role. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

After the action. Stockouts, expiry, losses and verified lot traceability.

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

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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. Resolve objections to sub-watershed implementation plansDEC-DP13-015 · Community consultation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve objections to sub-watershed implementation plans.

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. Plan version; affected groups; responses; objections; commitments; resolution.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — community consultation · 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. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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. Check deviations from agreed field work plansDEC-DP13-016 · Progress exceptions · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Investigate deviations from agreed field work plans.

Validation required

Method. Observed value minus Planned value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Planned value when the earlier value is positive.

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 value [work units]; Observed value [work units]

Other required evidence. Task target; actual quantity; period; unit; delay reason; evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — progress exceptions · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Planned value	100	work units
Observed value	90	work units
Difference	-10	work units
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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. Select feasible routes for field monitoring visitsDEC-DP13-017 · Access routes · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Select feasible routes for field monitoring visits.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Site coordinates; roads; closures; travel time; visit duration; team capacity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — access routes · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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. Review overlapping field support to the same participantsDEC-DP13-018 · Support duplication · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review overlapping field support to the same participants.

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. Participant ID; support purpose; programme; period; prior support; authorization.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — support duplication · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Permitted recipient/service reference	Laggala Pallegama — support duplication
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. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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 field records before reviewDEC-DP13-019 · Field form quality · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Correct incomplete field records before review.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. 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. Record ID; Record ID evidence reference; required fields; required fields evidence reference; units; units evidence reference; timestamps; timestamps evidence reference; source; source evidence reference; attachments; attachments evidence reference; validation; validation evidence reference

Other required evidence. Record ID; required fields; units; timestamps; source; attachments; validation.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — field form quality · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Record ID	Missing
Record ID evidence reference
required fields	Documented
required fields evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
units	Documented
units evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
timestamps	Documented
timestamps evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
source	Documented
source evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
attachments	Documented
attachments evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
validation	Documented
validation 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. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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

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

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

20. Check whether completed interventions improved local outcomesDEC-DP13-020 · Local outcomes · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Assess whether completed interventions improved local 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 Verified local outcome indicator before [specified outcome unit]; Treatment Verified local outcome indicator after [specified outcome unit]; Comparison Verified local outcome indicator before [specified outcome unit]; Comparison Verified local outcome indicator after [specified outcome unit]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Baseline; follow-up; intervention dates; comparison sites; weather; community feedback.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — local outcomes · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Verified local outcome indicator before	42	specified outcome unit
Treatment Verified local outcome indicator after	59	specified outcome unit
Comparison Verified local outcome indicator before	39	specified outcome unit
Comparison Verified local outcome indicator after	46	specified outcome unit
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Verified local 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. Delivery-team technical lead and community/safeguards reviewer.

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.
IFRC community engagement and accountability — Institution publication. Community Engagement and Accountability: participation and trusted feedback mechanisms. 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.

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
Watershed_Type	Confirm if needed	No
Watershed_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Catchment_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Basin_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Region_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
Watershed_Number	Confirm if needed	No
Hectares	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

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?

Sub-Watershed Integrated Delivery Teams

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?