Department of Wildlife Conservation

1. Improve comparable biodiversity surveys in protected areasDEC-DP19-001 · Survey coverage · Suggested priority: High

Improve comparable biodiversity surveys in protected areas.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Protected-area frame; survey events; species; effort; protocol; season.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — survey coverage · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

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

Institution and data context

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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: unresolved wildlife conflict and rescue casesDEC-DP19-002 · Wildlife incidents · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize unresolved wildlife conflict and rescue cases.

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. Incident; species; location; severity evidence; date; response; responsible team.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — wildlife incidents · 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. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Find threatened-species habitats requiring protection reviewDEC-DP19-003 · Habitat exposure · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify threatened-species habitats requiring protection review.

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. Species habitat; threat status edition; development footprint; survey uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — habitat exposure · 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. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Refer candidate conservation actions for specialist threat assessmentDEC-DP19-004 · Threat reduction · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer candidate conservation actions for specialist threat assessment.

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. Refer site-specific actions for a valid STAR appraisal and compare feasible interventions.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Species range; Species range evidence reference; threats; threats evidence reference; action feasibility; action feasibility evidence reference; threat reduction evidence; threat reduction evidence evidence reference; uncertainty; uncertainty evidence reference

Other required evidence. Species range; threats; action feasibility; threat reduction evidence; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — threat reduction · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Species range	Missing
Species range evidence reference
threats	Documented
threats evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
action feasibility	Documented
action feasibility evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
threat reduction evidence	Documented
threat reduction evidence 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. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

After the action. Specialist-reviewed threat reduction/restoration contribution and field outcomes.

IUCN Species Threat Abatement and Restoration metric — Institution publication. Scientific underpinning and approach; full STAR calculation is not implemented. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

5. Compare locally evidenced coexistence interventionsDEC-DP19-005 · Human-elephant conflict · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare locally evidenced coexistence interventions.

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. Incident history; elephant movement; settlement use; fence options; costs; consultations.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Habitat restoration · 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 locally evidenced coexistence interventions; Incident history and elephant movement 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. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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: defects in approved protective fencesDEC-DP19-006 · Fence maintenance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize defects in approved protective fences.

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. Authorize feasible repair through the proper work process, inspect further, or restrict unsafe use.

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. Fence segment; condition; failures; exposed communities; maintenance resources.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — fence maintenance · 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. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

After the action. Verified defect closure, service availability and repeat failures.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Review proposed activities affecting habitat connectivityDEC-DP19-007 · Wildlife corridors · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review proposed activities affecting habitat connectivity.

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. Habitat patches; movement evidence; corridor alternatives; roads; land rights.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — wildlife corridors · 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. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Assign verified illegal-activity observations for authorized investigationDEC-DP19-008 · Poaching response · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Assign verified illegal-activity observations for authorized investigation.

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. Incident evidence; location; date; species; patrol capacity; responsible authority.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — poaching response · 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. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Compare patrol routes for permitted priority areasDEC-DP19-009 · Patrol coverage · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare patrol routes for permitted priority areas.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Risk locations; patrol staff; routes; travel time; terrain; access restrictions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — patrol coverage · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

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

Institution and data context

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Select invasive-species management prioritiesDEC-DP19-010 · Invasive species · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select invasive-species management priorities.

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. Species; Species evidence reference; occupied area; occupied area evidence reference; spread; spread evidence reference; ecological impact; ecological impact evidence reference; treatment options; treatment options evidence reference; uncertainty; uncertainty evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Species; occupied area; spread; ecological impact; treatment options; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — invasive species · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Species	Missing
Species evidence reference
occupied area	Documented
occupied area evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
spread	Documented
spread evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
ecological impact	Documented
ecological impact evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
treatment options	Documented
treatment options evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
uncertainty	Documented
uncertainty 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. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Review visitor pressure against approved protected-area capacityDEC-DP19-011 · Visitor management · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Review visitor pressure against approved protected-area capacity.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Visitor counts; facilities; sensitive sites; approved limits; seasonal conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — visitor management · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

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

Institution and data context

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Check research proposals against current permit requirementsDEC-DP19-012 · Research permissions · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Check research proposals against current permit requirements.

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. Research proposal; Research proposal evidence reference; species; species evidence reference; methods; methods evidence reference; site; site evidence reference; ethics; ethics evidence reference; requested collections; requested collections evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference

Other required evidence. Research proposal; species; methods; site; ethics; requested collections; conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — research permissions · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Research proposal	Missing
Research proposal evidence reference
species	Documented
species evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
methods	Documented
methods evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
site	Documented
site evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
ethics	Documented
ethics evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
requested collections	Documented
requested collections 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. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Determine safe release of wildlife location dataDEC-DP19-013 · Sensitive information · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Determine safe release of wildlife location data.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Species sensitivity; Species sensitivity evidence reference; coordinates; coordinates evidence reference; purpose; purpose evidence reference; rights; rights evidence reference; aggregation policy; aggregation policy evidence reference; approval; approval evidence reference

Other required evidence. Species sensitivity; coordinates; purpose; rights; aggregation policy; approval.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — sensitive information · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Species sensitivity	Missing
Species sensitivity evidence reference
coordinates	Documented
coordinates evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
purpose	Documented
purpose evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
rights	Documented
rights evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
aggregation policy	Documented
aggregation policy evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
approval	Documented
approval evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

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

Institution and data context

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Compare restoration actions for degraded wildlife habitatsDEC-DP19-014 · Habitat restoration · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare restoration actions for degraded wildlife habitats.

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. Habitat condition; native species; hydrology; land rights; costs; threats.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Habitat restoration · 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 restoration actions for degraded wildlife habitats; Habitat condition and native species 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. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Review population trends using comparable survey effortDEC-DP19-015 · Population monitoring · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Review population trends using comparable survey effort.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Species; repeat surveys; detection; effort; season; estimation method.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — population monitoring · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

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

Institution and data context

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Refer unusual mortality or illness clusters to specialistsDEC-DP19-016 · Wildlife health · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer unusual mortality or illness clusters to specialists.

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 [cases]; Later/comparison value [cases]

Other required evidence. Species; mortality count; location; dates; sample evidence; veterinary referral.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — wildlife health · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Allocate licensed rescue resources against current demandDEC-DP19-017 · Rescue capacity · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Allocate licensed rescue resources against current demand.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Rescue cases; required skills; vehicles; facilities; travel; available capacity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — rescue capacity · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

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

Institution and data context

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Target conflict-affected communities lacking supportDEC-DP19-018 · Community outreach · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Target conflict-affected communities lacking support.

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. Affected community frame; outreach; verified uptake; conflict incidents; period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — community outreach · 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. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Compare conservation outcomes and adverse effectsDEC-DP19-019 · Conservation effectiveness · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Evaluate conservation outcomes and adverse effects.

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 Comparable habitat-condition indicator before [specified condition unit]; Treatment Comparable habitat-condition indicator after [specified condition unit]; Comparison Comparable habitat-condition indicator before [specified condition unit]; Comparison Comparable habitat-condition indicator after [specified condition unit]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Intervention; baseline condition; follow-up; comparison sites; pressures; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — conservation effectiveness · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Comparable habitat-condition indicator before	42	specified condition unit
Treatment Comparable habitat-condition indicator after	59	specified condition unit
Comparison Comparable habitat-condition indicator before	39	specified condition unit
Comparison Comparable habitat-condition indicator after	46	specified condition unit
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Comparable habitat-condition indicator /example matching definition1
Difference in changes	10	specified condition unit

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

Proposed checking role. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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. Resolve conflicting protected-area and habitat labelsDEC-DP19-020 · Protected-area records · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Resolve conflicting protected-area and habitat labels.

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. Boundary source; Boundary source evidence reference; legal edition; legal edition evidence reference; area name; area name evidence reference; habitat classification; habitat classification evidence reference; custodian; custodian evidence reference

Other required evidence. Boundary source; legal edition; area name; habitat classification; custodian.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — protected-area records · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Boundary source	Missing
Boundary source evidence reference
legal edition	Documented
legal edition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
area name	Documented
area name evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
habitat classification	Documented
habitat classification evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
custodian	Documented
custodian 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. Wildlife ecologist, protected-area manager and veterinary specialist where needed.

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

Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wilpattu management plan 2019–2024 — Institution publication. Wilpattu National Park Management Plan 2019-2024: approval page and executive summary. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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
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
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?

Department of Wildlife Conservation

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?