Geological Survey and Mines Bureau

1. Refer proposed sites overlapping geological constraintsDEC-DP23-001 · Geological constraints · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer proposed sites overlapping geological constraints.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Site footprint; geological units; faults; map scale; uncertainty; project type.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — geological constraints · 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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Commission geological mapping in poorly covered catchmentsDEC-DP23-002 · Mapping coverage · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Commission geological mapping in poorly covered catchments.

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

Other required evidence. Catchment frame; geology coverage; survey dates; scale; priority requirements.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — mapping coverage · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Select parcels requiring detailed geological investigationDEC-DP23-003 · Site investigation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select parcels requiring detailed geological investigation.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Geology; Geology evidence reference; slope; slope evidence reference; groundwater; groundwater evidence reference; project footprint; project footprint evidence reference; hazard evidence; hazard evidence evidence reference; expert requirements; expert requirements evidence reference

Other required evidence. Geology; slope; groundwater; project footprint; hazard evidence; expert requirements.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — site investigation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Geology	Missing
Geology evidence reference
slope	Documented
slope evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
groundwater	Documented
groundwater evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
project footprint	Documented
project footprint evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
hazard evidence	Documented
hazard evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
expert requirements	Documented
expert requirements 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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Reassess site screening after geological-map changesDEC-DP23-004 · Map revisions · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Reassess site screening after geological-map changes.

Validation required

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

Next step. Review evidence. Accept a genuine change for planning review, investigate a discontinuity, or defer comparison.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Earlier/source value [affected sites]; Later/comparison value [affected sites]

Other required evidence. Map editions; unit boundaries; affected sites; classification changes; effective dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — map revisions · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Earlier/source value	100	affected sites
Later/comparison value	90	affected sites
Difference	-10	affected sites
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

After the action. Comparable change after the chosen action and unresolved discrepancies.

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

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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 mining applications for authorized determinationDEC-DP23-005 · Mining licenses · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer complete mining applications for authorized determination.

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. Application; Application evidence reference; mineral; mineral evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; land rights; land rights evidence reference; current conditions; current conditions evidence reference; environmental approval; environmental approval evidence reference

Other required evidence. Application; mineral; location; land rights; current conditions; environmental approval.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — mining licenses · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Application	Missing
Application evidence reference
mineral	Documented
mineral evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
location	Documented
location evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
land rights	Documented
land rights evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
current conditions	Documented
current conditions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
environmental approval	Documented
environmental 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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Check extraction differing from authorized quantitiesDEC-DP23-006 · Extraction monitoring · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate extraction differing from authorized quantities.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Planned value [m³]; Observed value [m³]

Other required evidence. License; approved volume; reported extraction; measured extraction; period; unit.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — extraction monitoring · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

After the action. Subsequent variance with original and revised targets retained.

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Check rehabilitation obligations before closure reviewDEC-DP23-007 · Mine rehabilitation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Verify rehabilitation obligations before closure review.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. 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. Mine ID; Mine ID evidence reference; approved plan; approved plan evidence reference; works; works evidence reference; inspection evidence; inspection evidence evidence reference; financial provisions; financial provisions evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference

Other required evidence. Mine ID; approved plan; works; inspection evidence; financial provisions; conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — mine rehabilitation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Mine ID	Missing
Mine ID evidence reference
approved plan	Documented
approved plan evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
works	Documented
works evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
inspection evidence	Documented
inspection evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
financial provisions	Documented
financial provisions 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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Find extraction proposals needing hydrological and ecological reviewDEC-DP23-008 · River sand · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify extraction proposals needing hydrological and ecological 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. Extraction footprint; river geometry; reservations; sediment evidence; permits; constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — river sand · 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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

9. Check documented quarry effects on nearby receptorsDEC-DP23-009 · Quarry impacts · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate documented quarry effects on nearby receptors.

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 [mm/s]; Example lower comparison bound [mm/s]; Example upper comparison bound [mm/s]; 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. Quarry; blast records; vibration; noise; dust; receptors; applicable limits.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — quarry impacts · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parameter and applicable use	Ground vibration peak particle velocity
Measured result	5	mm/s
Example lower comparison bound	0	mm/s
Example upper comparison bound	4	mm/s
Original and limit unit	mm/s
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	5	mm/s

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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Refer suspected unlicensed extraction for investigationDEC-DP23-010 · Illegal extraction · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer suspected unlicensed extraction for investigation.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Observed footprint; date; license registry; evidence; uncertainty; competent authority.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — illegal extraction · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Choose what to handle first: exploration using evidence and feasibility constraintsDEC-DP23-011 · Mineral resources · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prioritize exploration using evidence and feasibility constraints.

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. Geological evidence; sample results; access; infrastructure; costs; restrictions.

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	Prioritize exploration using evidence and feasibility constraints; Geological evidence and sample results 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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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 mining proposals affecting groundwater systemsDEC-DP23-012 · Groundwater interactions · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review mining proposals affecting groundwater systems.

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. Mine depth; Mine depth evidence reference; aquifer; aquifer evidence reference; pumping; pumping evidence reference; well network; well network evidence reference; baseline quality; baseline quality evidence reference; hydrogeological assessment; hydrogeological assessment evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Mine depth; aquifer; pumping; well network; baseline quality; hydrogeological assessment.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — groundwater interactions · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Mine depth	Missing
Mine depth evidence reference
aquifer	Documented
aquifer evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
pumping	Documented
pumping evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
well network	Documented
well network evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
baseline quality	Documented
baseline quality evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
hydrogeological assessment	Documented
hydrogeological assessment 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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

After the action. Verified control effectiveness and residual risk with evidence.

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

13. Choose what to handle first: pending mineral and material analysesDEC-DP23-013 · Laboratory services · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prioritize pending mineral and material analyses.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Sample; required analysis; receipt date; due date; lab capacity; quality controls.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — laboratory services · 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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

After the action. Response time, aged cases, completion and reopened cases.

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

14. Resolve analytical discrepancies before resource assessmentDEC-DP23-014 · Sample integrity · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve analytical discrepancies before resource assessment.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Original source measurement [mg/kg]; Independent comparison measurement [mg/kg]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition

Other required evidence. Sample ID; custody; duplicates; assay method; reference materials; units.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — sample integrity · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Check mineral transport documents against authorized sourcesDEC-DP23-015 · Transport permissions · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Check mineral transport documents against authorized sources.

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. Shipment; Shipment evidence reference; source license; source license evidence reference; mineral; mineral evidence reference; quantity; quantity evidence reference; route; route evidence reference; validity; validity evidence reference; required documents; required documents evidence reference

Other required evidence. Shipment; source license; mineral; quantity; route; validity; required documents.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — transport permissions · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Shipment	Missing
Shipment evidence reference
source license	Documented
source license evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
mineral	Documented
mineral evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
quantity	Documented
quantity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
route	Documented
route evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
validity	Documented
validity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
required documents	Documented
required documents 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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Schedule inspections according to approved risk prioritiesDEC-DP23-016 · Mine inspections · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Schedule inspections according to approved 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. License conditions; prior violations; hazards; inspection due dates; staff capacity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — mine inspections · 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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

17. Check differences in extraction-related payable and recorded receiptsDEC-DP23-017 · Revenue reconciliation · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Investigate differences in extraction-related payable and recorded receipts.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Original source measurement [LKR]; Independent comparison measurement [LKR]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition

Other required evidence. Assessed dues; rates edition; declared quantities; receipts; adjustments; period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — revenue reconciliation · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Escalate verified geohazard concerns to relevant specialistsDEC-DP23-018 · Geohazard evidence · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Escalate verified geohazard concerns to relevant specialists.

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. Observed instability; Observed instability evidence reference; geology; geology evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; exposed assets; exposed assets evidence reference; field evidence; field evidence evidence reference; referral; referral evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Observed instability; geology; location; exposed assets; field evidence; referral.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — geohazard evidence · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Observed instability	Missing
Observed instability evidence reference
geology	Documented
geology evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
location	Documented
location evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
exposed assets	Documented
exposed assets evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
field evidence	Documented
field evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
referral	Documented
referral 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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

After the action. Verified control effectiveness and residual risk with evidence.

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Require reproducible mineral-resource estimation evidenceDEC-DP23-019 · Resource estimates · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Require reproducible mineral-resource estimation evidence.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Sampling design; assays; model; density; uncertainty; independent checks.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — resource estimates · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

After the action. Independent reproduction within the approved tolerance.

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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. Improve discoverability and provenance of geological recordsDEC-DP23-020 · Geological catalogue · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Improve discoverability and provenance of geological records.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. Accept a fit source for a defined use, restrict it, or request metadata/schema correction.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Map ID; Map ID evidence reference; scale; scale evidence reference; survey date; survey date evidence reference; lithology definitions; lithology definitions evidence reference; owner; owner evidence reference; access rights; access rights evidence reference

Other required evidence. Map ID; scale; survey date; lithology definitions; owner; access rights.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — geological catalogue · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Map ID	Missing
Map ID evidence reference
scale	Documented
scale evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
survey date	Documented
survey date evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
lithology definitions	Documented
lithology definitions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
owner	Documented
owner evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
access rights	Documented
access rights 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. Geologist, mining/environmental specialist and licensing reviewer.

After the action. Resolved interoperability issues and current verified metadata.

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

Institution and data context

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau licensing information — Government publication. Licensing: licence categories and application information. 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
Soil_Classification_1	Confirm if needed	No
Soil_Classification_1	Confirm if needed	No
Soil_Classification_1	Confirm if needed	No
Zone	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter	Confirm if needed	No
SL SOIL	Confirm if needed	No
SL SOIL ID	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
SOIL TYPE	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Erosion Site ID	Confirm if needed	No
Erosion Rate	Confirm if needed	No
Latitude_KM	Confirm if needed	No
Longitude_KM	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No

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

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?

Geological Survey and Mines Bureau

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?