Disaster Management Centre

1. Choose what to handle first: districts with verified disaster impactsDEC-DP16-001 · Affected households · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize districts with verified disaster impacts.

Validation required

Method. 100 × distinct covered eligible units / eligible frame. Known uncovered = frame − covered − unknown.

Next step. Review evidence. Select eligible underserved units for outreach, investigate missing coverage, or revise the verified frame.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Required eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households]

Other required evidence. Event ID; affected households; exposed household frame; location; assessment date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — affected households · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

After the action. Verified eligible units receiving service and remaining unmet need.

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government 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. Direct sector assessments where losses are greatestDEC-DP16-002 · Damage and loss · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Direct sector assessments where losses are greatest.

Validation required

Method. Asset quantity × replacement/repair unit cost. Show interrupted economic flows separately; no automatic damage+flow total or double counting.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate cost drivers, compare suppliers/practices, or revise the budget proposal.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Damaged asset quantity [asset units]; Repair/replacement cost per matching unit [LKR/unit]; Interrupted service/production flow value [LKR/period]; Price year and flow interruption period

Other required evidence. Event; damaged assets; repair values; disrupted flows; sector; price year.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — damage and loss · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Damaged asset quantity	12	asset units
Repair/replacement cost per matching unit	150,000	LKR/unit
Interrupted service/production flow value	250,000	LKR/period
Price year and flow interruption period	Sample2025 prices / stated interruption period
Estimated asset damage	1,800,000	LKR
Interrupted flow value	250,000	LKR/period

An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable.

Proposed checking role. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

After the action. Actual comparable unit cost and service/output 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

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

3. Address safe-centre capacity and accessibility gapsDEC-DP16-003 · Safe centres · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Address safe-centre capacity and accessibility gaps.

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 [places]; Rated capacity for that period [places]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [places]

Other required evidence. Centre capacity; current occupants; vulnerable needs; water; sanitation; access.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — safe centres · Laggala Pallegama

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

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. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

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

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

4. Target documented recovery needs lacking confirmed fundingDEC-DP16-004 · Recovery funding · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Target documented recovery needs lacking confirmed funding.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Recovery requirement; approved allocations; commitments; disbursements; project scope.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — recovery funding · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

5. Find communities missing authorized warningsDEC-DP16-005 · Warning dissemination · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify communities missing authorized warnings.

Validation required

Method. 100 × distinct covered eligible units / eligible frame. Known uncovered = frame − covered − unknown.

Next step. Review evidence. Select eligible underserved units for outreach, investigate missing coverage, or revise the verified frame.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Required eligible frame [households]; Distinct members of that frame covered [households]; Frame members with unknown coverage [households]

Other required evidence. Official warning ID; target area; delivery channels; acknowledgements; recipient frame.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — warning dissemination · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

After the action. Verified eligible units receiving service and remaining unmet need.

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

6. Compare feasible evacuation routes and shelter accessDEC-DP16-006 · Evacuation planning · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare feasible evacuation routes and shelter access.

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. Hazard scenario; verified road network; closures; shelters; travel times; capacity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — evacuation planning · 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. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

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

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

7. Allocate response resources against assessed needsDEC-DP16-007 · Emergency resources · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Allocate response resources against assessed needs.

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 [places]; Rated capacity for that period [places]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [places]

Other required evidence. Incident needs; available teams; vehicles; equipment; travel time; priority protocol.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — emergency resources · Laggala Pallegama

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

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. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

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

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

8. Review overlapping or missing relief deliveriesDEC-DP16-008 · Relief distribution · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review overlapping or missing relief deliveries.

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. Household ID; verified needs; relief type; delivery date; quantity; programme.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — relief distribution · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Permitted recipient/service reference	Laggala Pallegama — relief distribution
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. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

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

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

9. Prevent critical shortages in emergency storesDEC-DP16-009 · Relief stocks · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prevent critical shortages in emergency stores.

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

Other required evidence. Commodity; usable stock; commitments; expected demand; lead time; expiry.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — relief stocks · Laggala Pallegama

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

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. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

10. Resolve failures identified during preparedness exercisesDEC-DP16-010 · Preparedness drills · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve failures identified during preparedness exercises.

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. Exercise scenario; Exercise scenario evidence reference; required actions; required actions evidence reference; response times; response times evidence reference; observed failures; observed failures evidence reference; corrective owner; corrective owner evidence reference

Other required evidence. Exercise scenario; required actions; response times; observed failures; corrective owner.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — preparedness drills · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Exercise scenario	Missing
Exercise scenario evidence reference
required actions	Documented
required actions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
response times	Documented
response times evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
observed failures	Documented
observed failures evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
corrective owner	Documented
corrective owner 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. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

After the action. Evidence-backed corrective closure and recurring nonconformances.

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

11. Compare mitigation proposals for exposed communitiesDEC-DP16-011 · Risk reduction · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare mitigation proposals for exposed communities.

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. Hazards; exposure; vulnerability; mitigation options; costs; feasibility; safeguards.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Warning-channel support · 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 mitigation proposals for exposed communities; Hazards and exposure 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. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

After the action. Verified benefits, costs and adverse effects versus the agreed baseline.

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

12. Choose what to handle first: schools hospitals and utilities for risk assessmentDEC-DP16-012 · Critical facilities · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize schools hospitals and utilities for risk assessment.

Validation required

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

Next step. Review evidence. Refer affected sites for technical/legal review, revise the footprint, or request a field survey.

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Facility locations; hazard layers; service population; vulnerability; boundary uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — critical facilities · Laggala Pallegama

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

Geometry preparation must use matching coordinate systems, dated boundary editions and valid spatial predicates. Overlap supports referral; it does not determine ownership, permission or site safety.

Proposed checking role. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

After the action. Resolved constraints and independently checked site conditions.

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

13. Find areas awaiting reliable rapid damage assessmentsDEC-DP16-013 · Rapid assessments · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify areas awaiting reliable rapid damage assessments.

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

Other required evidence. Affected-area frame; submitted assessments; accepted assessments; age; assessor capacity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — rapid assessments · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

After the action. Verified eligible units receiving service and remaining unmet need.

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

14. Resolve incompatible assignments across response agenciesDEC-DP16-014 · Response coordination · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve incompatible assignments across response agencies.

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. Tasks; agency roles; locations; dependencies; resources; coordination decisions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — response coordination · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Required resource	Watershed field team
Task start	2025-06-01
Task end	2025-06-04
Earliest permitted start	2025-05-28
Latest permitted finish	2025-06-08
Required resource effort	16	hours
Available resource effort	24	hours
Predecessor task reference	None
Mandatory permits and prerequisites	Met
Planned duration	3	days
Resource hours remaining	8	hours

Proposed checking role. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

After the action. On-time completion with verified outputs and resource use.

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

15. Escalate delayed reconstruction and rehabilitation workDEC-DP16-015 · Recovery progress · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Escalate delayed reconstruction and rehabilitation work.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Approved milestones; actual work; acceptance; budget; affected service; dependencies.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — recovery progress · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

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

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

16. Review changing disaster impacts across comparable eventsDEC-DP16-016 · Impact trends · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Review changing disaster impacts across comparable events.

Validation required

Method. Display observations in dated order. Sample SD uses n−1; coefficient of variation = 100 × SD / positive mean.

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Comparable observation [affected households per 1000 exposed]

Other required evidence. Hazard type; event severity; affected units; exposure denominator; reporting changes.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — impact trends · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Comparable observation	104	affected households per 1000 exposed
Observed value	104	affected households per 1000 exposed

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

Proposed checking role. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

17. Check whether local contingency plans remain usableDEC-DP16-017 · Contingency plans · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Check whether local contingency plans remain usable.

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. Plan edition; Plan edition evidence reference; hazard scenarios; hazard scenarios evidence reference; contacts; contacts evidence reference; resources; resources evidence reference; drills; drills evidence reference; approval dates; approval dates evidence reference

Other required evidence. Plan edition; hazard scenarios; contacts; resources; drills; approval dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — contingency plans · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Plan edition	Missing
Plan edition evidence reference
hazard scenarios	Documented
hazard scenarios evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
contacts	Documented
contacts evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
resources	Documented
resources evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
drills	Documented
drills evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
approval dates	Documented
approval dates evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

After the action. Evidence-backed corrective closure and recurring nonconformances.

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

18. Check authority and validity before publishing alertsDEC-DP16-018 · Public information · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Verify authority and validity before publishing alerts.

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. Issuing authority; Issuing authority evidence reference; warning version; warning version evidence reference; affected area; affected area evidence reference; expiry; expiry evidence reference; publication approval; publication approval evidence reference

Other required evidence. Issuing authority; warning version; affected area; expiry; publication approval.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — public information · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Issuing authority	Missing
Issuing authority evidence reference
warning version	Documented
warning version evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
affected area	Documented
affected area evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
expiry	Documented
expiry 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. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

19. Check response effectiveness and unintended consequencesDEC-DP16-019 · Response evaluation · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Assess response effectiveness and unintended consequences.

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

Other required evidence. Response actions; baseline readiness; outcomes; timing; community feedback; evaluation design.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — response evaluation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Verified response completion before	42	%
Treatment Verified response completion after	59	%
Comparison Verified response completion before	39	%
Comparison Verified response completion after	46	%
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Verified response completion /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. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

20. Compare and correct differences in duplicate disaster incident reportsDEC-DP16-020 · Incident records · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Reconcile duplicate disaster incident reports.

Validation required

Method. Compare original definitions, identifiers, units and versions against documented equivalence evidence. Preserve conflicts and unresolved mappings; do not subtract category labels or silently merge records.

Next step. Resolve source disagreement. Assign discrepancies to the custodian, accept documented corrections, or retain unresolved versions.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Original source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence

Other required evidence. Event ID; time; location; hazard; reporting agency; duplicate evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — incident records · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. Disaster operations coordinator and relevant hazard/relief specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

Disaster Management Centre profile — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

Field	Unit	Required
Layer Name RiskInfo	Confirm if needed	No
Category	Confirm if needed	No
Max	Confirm if needed	No
Class Name	Confirm if needed	No
max11	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
range	Confirm if needed	No
level	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
range	Confirm if needed	No
category	Confirm if needed	No
manual	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Shelter_Type	Confirm if needed	No
Shelter_Owned_by	Confirm if needed	No
Shelter_Capacity	Confirm if needed	No
Number_of_Floors	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?

Disaster Management Centre

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?