National Building Research Organisation

1. Refer proposed sites overlapping landslide hazard zonesDEC-DP17-001 · Site clearance · Suggested priority: High

Refer proposed sites overlapping landslide hazard zones.

Validation required

Method. 100 × union of constraint overlap / proposal footprint. Count intersecting constraint areas once.

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. Proposal footprint [ha]; Union of overlapping constraint areas [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition

Other required evidence. Site polygon; hazard map edition; slope; development type; investigation requirement.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — site clearance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Proposal footprint	75	ha
Union of overlapping constraint areas	18	ha
Boundary edition	Sample boundary1
Constraint definition	Sample constraint class
Overlap share	24	%
Overlapping area	18	ha

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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer.

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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

2. Choose what to handle first: zones with outdated or incomplete hazard evidenceDEC-DP17-002 · Hazard-map updates · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize zones with outdated or incomplete hazard evidence.

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. Map coverage; Map coverage evidence reference; edition date; edition date evidence reference; new incidents; new incidents evidence reference; terrain changes; terrain changes evidence reference; survey need; survey need evidence reference

Other required evidence. Map coverage; edition date; new incidents; terrain changes; survey need.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — hazard-map updates · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Map coverage	Missing
Map coverage evidence reference
edition date	Documented
edition date evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
new incidents	Documented
new incidents evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
terrain changes	Documented
terrain changes evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
survey need	Documented
survey need 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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: exposed assets for site-specific investigationDEC-DP17-003 · Asset exposure · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize exposed assets for site-specific investigation.

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. Asset geometry; susceptibility class; vulnerability evidence; map accuracy; occupancy.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — asset exposure · 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer.

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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Check rainfall patterns associated with landslidesDEC-DP17-004 · Rainfall investigations · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate rainfall patterns associated with landslides.

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 [mm]

Other required evidence. Dated landslides; rainfall series; antecedent conditions; station coverage; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — rainfall investigations · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Comparable observation	104	mm
Observed value	104	mm

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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer.

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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Escalate observed cracks movement and drainage defectsDEC-DP17-005 · Slope inspections · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Escalate observed cracks movement and drainage defects.

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. Slope ID; Slope ID evidence reference; movement observations; movement observations evidence reference; cracks; cracks evidence reference; seepage; seepage evidence reference; dated inspection; dated inspection evidence reference; approved limits; approved limits evidence reference

Other required evidence. Slope ID; movement observations; cracks; seepage; dated inspection; approved limits.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — slope inspections · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Slope ID	Missing
Slope ID evidence reference
movement observations	Documented
movement observations evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
cracks	Documented
cracks evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
seepage	Documented
seepage evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
dated inspection	Documented
dated inspection evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
approved limits	Documented
approved limits 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Repair failed landslide-monitoring instrumentsDEC-DP17-006 · Monitoring systems · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Repair failed landslide-monitoring instruments.

Validation required

Method. Completeness = 100 × valid / expected. Age = assessment date − latest valid observation; compare with the explicitly supplied interval.

Next step. Check overdue observation. Repair missed observations, contact the owner, or suspend stale evidence from current decisions.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Expected observations in the window [observations]; Distinct valid observations [observations]; Latest valid observation; Assessment date; Required observation interval [days]

Other required evidence. Sensor ID; cadence; last observation; calibration; fault history; criticality.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — monitoring systems · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Expected observations in the window	30	observations
Distinct valid observations	24	observations
Latest valid observation	2025-06-28
Assessment date	2025-06-30
Required observation interval	1	days
Completeness	80	%
Age of latest observation	2	days
Missing observations	6	observations

A recent observation does not fill earlier gaps. Unknown schedule or observation time cannot establish freshness.

Proposed checking role. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer.

After the action. Valid observations received on time and recurring gaps.

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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Compare engineering mitigation alternativesDEC-DP17-007 · Slope stabilization · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare engineering mitigation alternatives.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Site investigation; failure mechanism; designs; costs; land access; maintenance.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Drainage improvement · 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 engineering mitigation alternatives; Site investigation and failure mechanism 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Refer relocation alternatives for competent determinationDEC-DP17-008 · Relocation assessment · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer relocation alternatives for competent determination.

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. Hazard evidence; household needs; feasible sites; rights; consultations; approvals.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — relocation assessment · 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Check compliance with site-clearance conditionsDEC-DP17-009 · Construction conditions · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Verify compliance with site-clearance conditions.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. Request correction, refer mandatory failures, or accept the inspected item with conditions.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Clearance version; Clearance version evidence reference; condition checklist; condition checklist evidence reference; construction evidence; construction evidence evidence reference; inspection dates; inspection dates evidence reference; engineer; engineer evidence reference

Other required evidence. Clearance version; condition checklist; construction evidence; inspection dates; engineer.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — construction conditions · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Clearance version	Missing
Clearance version evidence reference
condition checklist	Documented
condition checklist evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
construction evidence	Documented
construction evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
inspection dates	Documented
inspection dates evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
engineer	Documented
engineer 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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 conflicting ground-investigation resultsDEC-DP17-010 · Geotechnical evidence · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve conflicting ground-investigation results.

Validation required

Method. Later/comparison value minus Earlier/source value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Earlier/source value when the earlier value is positive.

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. Original source measurement [mm]; Independent comparison measurement [mm]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition

Other required evidence. Boreholes; laboratory results; stratigraphy; locations; methods; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — geotechnical evidence · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Original source measurement	100	mm
Independent comparison measurement	90	mm
Original measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Comparison measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Compared measure and definition	Sample comparable mm measure; same input scope
Difference	-10	mm
Relative change	-10	%

Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite.

Proposed checking role. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Prepare technical review of landslide-warning conditionsDEC-DP17-011 · Early warning evidence · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prepare technical review of landslide-warning conditions.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. 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. Rainfall; Rainfall evidence reference; soil moisture; soil moisture evidence reference; movement; movement evidence reference; approved thresholds; approved thresholds evidence reference; forecast; forecast evidence reference; duty authority; duty authority evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Rainfall; soil moisture; movement; approved thresholds; forecast; duty authority.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — early warning evidence · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Rainfall	Missing
Rainfall evidence reference
soil moisture	Documented
soil moisture evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
movement	Documented
movement evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
approved thresholds	Documented
approved thresholds evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
forecast	Documented
forecast evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
duty authority	Documented
duty authority 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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: delayed geotechnical testing requestsDEC-DP17-012 · Laboratory workload · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prioritize delayed geotechnical testing requests.

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. Sample ID; required test; receipt date; urgency; due date; laboratory capacity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — laboratory workload · 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Choose what to handle first: assessment of unstable road cutsDEC-DP17-013 · Road slopes · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize assessment of unstable road cuts.

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. Road segment; Road segment evidence reference; slope condition; slope condition evidence reference; traffic exposure; traffic exposure evidence reference; drainage; drainage evidence reference; failure history; failure history evidence reference; access; access evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Road segment; slope condition; traffic exposure; drainage; failure history; access.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — road slopes · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Road segment	Missing
Road segment evidence reference
slope condition	Documented
slope condition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
traffic exposure	Documented
traffic exposure evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
drainage	Documented
drainage evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
failure history	Documented
failure history evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
access	Documented
access 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Schedule investigations after reported slope failuresDEC-DP17-014 · Post-event inspection · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Schedule investigations after reported slope failures.

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. Incident ID; access restrictions; exposed assets; investigators; priority; weather.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — post-event inspection · 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Compare options to reduce slope-related drainage problemsDEC-DP17-015 · Drainage remediation · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare options to reduce slope-related drainage problems.

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. Seepage; runoff; drainage condition; slope mechanism; proposed works; costs.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Drainage improvement · 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 options to reduce slope-related drainage problems; Seepage and runoff 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Require validation of landslide susceptibility modelsDEC-DP17-016 · Model validation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Require validation of landslide susceptibility models.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Training incidents; independent validation; predictors; resolution; model version; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — model validation · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer.

After the action. Independent reproduction within the approved tolerance.

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

Institution and data context

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Compare stabilization performance after completionDEC-DP17-017 · Mitigation outcomes · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Evaluate stabilization performance after completion.

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 Measured slope displacement before [mm]; Treatment Measured slope displacement after [mm]; Comparison Measured slope displacement before [mm]; Comparison Measured slope displacement after [mm]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Baseline movement; post-work movement; rainfall; controls; maintenance; observation dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — mitigation outcomes · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Find developments needing additional terrain investigationDEC-DP17-018 · Land-use advice · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify developments needing additional terrain investigation.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Development footprint; Development footprint evidence reference; geology; geology evidence reference; slope; slope evidence reference; hydrology; hydrology evidence reference; hazard edition; hazard edition evidence reference; uncertainty; uncertainty evidence reference

Other required evidence. Development footprint; geology; slope; hydrology; hazard edition; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — land-use advice · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Development footprint	Missing
Development footprint evidence reference
geology	Documented
geology evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
slope	Documented
slope evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
hydrology	Documented
hydrology evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
hazard edition	Documented
hazard edition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
uncertainty	Documented
uncertainty 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical reviewer.

After the action. Field-verified limiting factors and observed performance.

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

Institution and data context

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Target exposed communities missing preparedness guidanceDEC-DP17-019 · Community awareness · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Target exposed communities missing preparedness guidance.

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. Exposure frame; outreach attendance; verified understanding; location; warning access.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — community awareness · 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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. Clear incomplete landslide assessment applicationsDEC-DP17-020 · Case administration · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Clear incomplete landslide assessment applications.

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. Application ID; missing evidence; received date; due date; assigned reviewer.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — case administration · 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. Geotechnical/landslide specialist and authorized technical 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

Landslide clearance assessment — Government publication. Issuing Landslide Clearance for Building Constructions / Land Developments / Projects: objectives and site assessment. 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
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

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?

National Building Research Organisation

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?