Central Environmental Authority

1. Check water samples exceeding applicable limitsDEC-DP18-001 · Water pollution · Suggested priority: High

Investigate water samples exceeding applicable limits.

Validation required

Method. Compare the measured value only with matching parameter, unit, use and averaging period. Retain limit source/version and censored-result status.

Next step. Within example comparison bounds. Refer a confirmed nonconformance for authorized response, resample, or investigate the method.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Parameter and applicable use; Measured result [pH]; Example lower comparison bound [pH]; Example upper comparison bound [pH]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis

Other required evidence. Sample; parameter; concentration; unit; method; receiving-water use; effective limit.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — water pollution · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parameter and applicable use	Ambient water pH for selected use
Measured result	7.4	pH
Example lower comparison bound	6.5	pH
Example upper comparison bound	8.5	pH
Original and limit unit	pH
Sampling and analytical method/version	Sample laboratory method
Limit source, version and use	Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit
Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match	Yes
Result is below a reporting/detection limit	No
Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis	Sample stated sampling/averaging basis
Measured value	7.4	pH

Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero.

Proposed checking role. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

After the action. Follow-up compliance, exposure/service condition and corrective closure.

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

CEA ambient water regulations — Government publication. Gazette2148/20, Schedule of use-specific categories. Published ambient water categories and limits; do not substitute them for drinking-water, effluent, air or noise rules.
Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

2. Choose what to handle first: river stretches lacking recent samplesDEC-DP18-002 · Sampling coverage · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize river stretches lacking recent samples.

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

Other required evidence. Monitoring network; required samples; accepted samples; dates; river segments.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — sampling coverage · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

3. Follow up unverified environmental mitigation obligationsDEC-DP18-003 · Mitigation compliance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Follow up unverified environmental mitigation obligations.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Permit or approval; Permit or approval evidence reference; condition; condition evidence reference; due date; due date evidence reference; inspection; inspection evidence reference; compliance evidence; compliance evidence evidence reference; owner; owner evidence reference

Other required evidence. Permit or approval; condition; due date; inspection; compliance evidence; owner.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — mitigation compliance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Permit or approval	Missing
Permit or approval evidence reference
condition	Documented
condition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
due date	Documented
due date evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
inspection	Documented
inspection evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
compliance evidence	Documented
compliance evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
owner	Documented
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. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

4. Check unusual changes in water-quality observationsDEC-DP18-004 · Water anomalies · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate unusual changes in water-quality observations.

Validation required

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

Next step. Review evidence. Verify the observation, refer a confirmed exception, or retain it with explanation.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Comparable reference value [mg/L]; Later/comparison value [mg/L]

Other required evidence. Comparable parameters; station; date; baseline; detection limits; laboratory method.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — water anomalies · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Comparable reference value	100	mg/L
Later/comparison value	90	mg/L
Difference	-10	mg/L
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

After the action. Validated exceptions, response time and resulting outcome.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

5. Refer complete license applications to the competent authorityDEC-DP18-005 · Environmental licensing · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer complete license applications to the competent authority.

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. Submit a recommendation to the appointed authority, request evidence, or record an appeal.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Activity classification; Activity classification evidence reference; application; application evidence reference; inspection; inspection evidence reference; current rules; current rules evidence reference; required documents; required documents evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference

Other required evidence. Activity classification; application; inspection; current rules; required documents; conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — environmental licensing · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Activity classification	Missing
Activity classification evidence reference
application	Documented
application evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
inspection	Documented
inspection evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
current rules	Documented
current rules evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
required documents	Documented
required documents evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
conditions	Documented
conditions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

After the action. Documented determinations, processing time and appeal outcomes.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

6. Choose what to handle first: licenses nearing expiry with unresolved conditionsDEC-DP18-006 · License renewal · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize licenses nearing expiry with unresolved conditions.

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. License ID; expiry; application date; outstanding conditions; inspection status.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — license renewal · 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. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

7. Screen project proposals for required assessment pathwaysDEC-DP18-007 · Environmental assessment · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Screen project proposals for required assessment pathways.

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. Submit a recommendation to the appointed authority, request evidence, or record an appeal.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Project type; Project type evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; scale; scale evidence reference; sensitive areas; sensitive areas evidence reference; current criteria; current criteria evidence reference; authority; authority evidence reference

Other required evidence. Project type; location; scale; sensitive areas; current criteria; authority.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — environmental assessment · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Project type	Missing
Project type evidence reference
location	Documented
location evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
scale	Documented
scale evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
sensitive areas	Documented
sensitive areas evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
current criteria	Documented
current criteria evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
authority	Documented
authority evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

After the action. Documented determinations, processing time and appeal outcomes.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

8. Check measured air-quality departures from applicable limitsDEC-DP18-008 · Air pollution · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate measured air-quality departures from applicable limits.

Validation required

Method. Compare the measured value only with matching parameter, unit, use and averaging period. Retain limit source/version and censored-result status.

Next step. Outside example comparison bounds. Refer a confirmed nonconformance for authorized response, resample, or investigate the method.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Parameter and applicable use; Measured result [µg/m³]; Example lower comparison bound [µg/m³]; Example upper comparison bound [µg/m³]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis

Other required evidence. Pollutant; averaging period; station; concentration; approved standard; quality flags.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — air pollution · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parameter and applicable use	PM2.5 concentration over stated averaging period
Measured result	38	µg/m³
Example lower comparison bound	0	µg/m³
Example upper comparison bound	35	µg/m³
Original and limit unit	µg/m³
Sampling and analytical method/version	Sample laboratory method
Limit source, version and use	Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit
Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match	Yes
Result is below a reporting/detection limit	No
Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis	Sample stated sampling/averaging basis
Measured value	38	µg/m³

Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero.

Proposed checking role. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

After the action. Follow-up compliance, exposure/service condition and corrective closure.

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

CEA ambient water regulations — Government publication. Gazette2148/20, Schedule of use-specific categories. Published ambient water categories and limits; do not substitute them for drinking-water, effluent, air or noise rules.
Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

9. Choose what to handle first: investigation of evidence-supported noise complaintsDEC-DP18-009 · Noise complaints · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize investigation of evidence-supported noise complaints.

Validation required

Method. Compare the measured value only with matching parameter, unit, use and averaging period. Retain limit source/version and censored-result status.

Next step. Outside example comparison bounds. Refer a confirmed nonconformance for authorized response, resample, or investigate the method.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Parameter and applicable use; Measured result [dB(A)]; Example lower comparison bound [dB(A)]; Example upper comparison bound [dB(A)]; Original and limit unit; Sampling and analytical method/version; Limit source, version and use; Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match; Result is below a reporting/detection limit; Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis

Other required evidence. Complaint; time; location; land-use zone; measurement; applicable limit.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — noise complaints · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parameter and applicable use	LAeq over stated interval and zone
Measured result	62	dB(A)
Example lower comparison bound	0	dB(A)
Example upper comparison bound	60	dB(A)
Original and limit unit	dB(A)
Sampling and analytical method/version	Sample laboratory method
Limit source, version and use	Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit
Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match	Yes
Result is below a reporting/detection limit	No
Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis	Sample stated sampling/averaging basis
Measured value	62	dB(A)

Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero.

Proposed checking role. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

After the action. Follow-up compliance, exposure/service condition and corrective closure.

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

CEA ambient water regulations — Government publication. Gazette2148/20, Schedule of use-specific categories. Published ambient water categories and limits; do not substitute them for drinking-water, effluent, air or noise rules.
Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

10. Target facilities with unresolved effluent-control failuresDEC-DP18-010 · Industrial effluent · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Target facilities with unresolved effluent-control failures.

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. Facility; Facility evidence reference; discharge; discharge evidence reference; permit conditions; permit conditions evidence reference; sample results; sample results evidence reference; treatment controls; treatment controls evidence reference; inspection; inspection evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Facility; discharge; permit conditions; sample results; treatment controls; inspection.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — industrial effluent · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Facility	Missing
Facility evidence reference
discharge	Documented
discharge evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
permit conditions	Documented
permit conditions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
sample results	Documented
sample results evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
treatment controls	Documented
treatment controls evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
inspection	Documented
inspection 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. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

11. Compare waste collection treatment and disposal optionsDEC-DP18-011 · Waste management · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare waste collection treatment and disposal options.

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. Waste type; quantity; hazards; facilities; costs; environmental constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Targeted sampling · 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 waste collection treatment and disposal options; Waste type and quantity 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. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

12. Review traceability of hazardous-waste transfersDEC-DP18-012 · Hazardous waste · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review traceability of hazardous-waste transfers.

Validation required

Method. Follow recorded upstream→downstream links within the same scope and period. Flag missing links; a confirmed defect identifies downstream linked candidates for authorized investigation.

Next step. Investigate linked downstream lot. 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. Upstream lot/source reference; Downstream lot/batch reference; Exact upstream source version; Recorded upstream issue

Other required evidence. Waste manifest; generator; carrier authorization; quantity; receiving facility; acceptance.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — hazardous waste · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Upstream lot/source reference	EXAMPLE-ROOT
Downstream lot/batch reference	2025-BATCH-1
Exact upstream source version	Sample version1
Recorded upstream issue	Confirmed defect
Broken or affected lineage	1	items

Recorded lineage is not proof of product identity or recall authority. Preserve multi-source batches, transfers and versions; do not clear unlinked lots as safe.

Proposed checking role. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

13. Refer development pressure overlapping protected wetland evidenceDEC-DP18-013 · Wetland conservation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer development pressure overlapping protected wetland evidence.

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. Wetland extent; protection status; project footprints; edition; field evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — wetland conservation · 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. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

14. Escalate unresolved pollution complaintsDEC-DP18-014 · Public complaints · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Escalate unresolved pollution complaints.

Validation required

Method. Open age = assessment date − received date. Days past due = max(0, assessment date − recorded due date) for open cases. Show documented critical conditions separately.

Next step. Follow up overdue case. Assign the next permitted case, escalate an overdue case, request evidence, or close with proof.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Received or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed

Other required evidence. Case ID; received date; impact evidence; due date; investigation; response.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — public complaints · 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. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

15. Schedule inspections by approved pollution-risk prioritiesDEC-DP18-015 · Inspection targeting · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Schedule inspections by approved pollution-risk priorities.

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. Facility risks; permit conditions; previous findings; inspector capacity; due dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — inspection targeting · 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. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

16. Coordinate investigation of reported pollution incidentsDEC-DP18-016 · Incident response · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Coordinate investigation of reported pollution incidents.

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. Incident; Incident evidence reference; pollutant; pollutant evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; exposed receptors; exposed receptors evidence reference; current controls; current controls evidence reference; response authority; response authority evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Incident; pollutant; location; exposed receptors; current controls; response authority.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — incident response · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Incident	Missing
Incident evidence reference
pollutant	Documented
pollutant evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
location	Documented
location evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
exposed receptors	Documented
exposed receptors evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
current controls	Documented
current controls evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
response authority	Documented
response 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. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

17. Target awareness programmes to documented compliance gapsDEC-DP18-017 · Environmental education · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Target awareness programmes to documented compliance gaps.

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

Other required evidence. Target institutions; findings; training participation; follow-up compliance; location.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — environmental education · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

18. Check environmental recovery after remedial worksDEC-DP18-018 · Restoration outcomes · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Assess environmental recovery after remedial works.

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 Selected water-quality parameter before [mg/L]; Treatment Selected water-quality parameter after [mg/L]; Comparison Selected water-quality parameter before [mg/L]; Comparison Selected water-quality parameter after [mg/L]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Baseline quality; follow-up; reference sites; intervention dates; external pressures.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — restoration outcomes · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Selected water-quality parameter before	42	mg/L
Treatment Selected water-quality parameter after	59	mg/L
Comparison Selected water-quality parameter before	39	mg/L
Comparison Selected water-quality parameter after	46	mg/L
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Selected water-quality parameter /example matching definition1
Difference in changes	10	mg/L

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

Proposed checking role. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

19. Review sample custody and analytical validity before actionDEC-DP18-019 · Laboratory evidence · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Review sample custody and analytical validity before action.

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. Sample ID; Sample ID evidence reference; custody; custody evidence reference; holding time; holding time evidence reference; method; method evidence reference; calibration; calibration evidence reference; blanks; blanks evidence reference; accreditation; accreditation evidence reference

Other required evidence. Sample ID; custody; holding time; method; calibration; blanks; accreditation.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — laboratory evidence · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Sample ID	Missing
Sample ID evidence reference
custody	Documented
custody evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
holding time	Documented
holding time evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
method	Documented
method evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
calibration	Documented
calibration evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
blanks	Documented
blanks evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
accreditation	Documented
accreditation 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. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

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

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

20. Harmonize classifications without altering source meaningsDEC-DP18-020 · Environmental records · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Harmonize classifications without altering source meanings.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. Approve a documented mapping, keep it Draft, or create a governed concept after review.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Source activity labels; Source activity labels evidence reference; current reference list; current reference list evidence reference; definition; definition evidence reference; edition; edition evidence reference; steward review; steward review evidence reference

Other required evidence. Source activity labels; current reference list; definition; edition; steward review.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — environmental records · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Source activity labels	Missing
Source activity labels evidence reference
current reference list	Documented
current reference list evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
definition	Documented
definition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
edition	Documented
edition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
steward review	Documented
steward review evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Environmental specialist, laboratory reviewer and regulatory officer.

After the action. Unmapped/conflicting concepts and history preserved across revisions.

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

Institution and data context

Environmental Protection License scheme — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Natural resources management and monitoring — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

Field	Unit	Required
Name	Confirm if needed	No
Type	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
ProCov ID	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
nsdi.sde.Protected_Area_Network.area	Confirm if needed	No

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

Field	Unit	Required
Name	Confirm if needed	No
Type	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
ProCov ID	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

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

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

Central Environmental Authority

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?