Land Commissioner General's Department

1. Choose what to handle first: unresolved state-land applicationsDEC-DP24-001 · Land applications · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize unresolved state-land applications.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Application ID; receipt date; case stage; due date; missing evidence; officer.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — land applications · 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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

2. Schedule lease and permit reviews before due datesDEC-DP24-002 · Lease reviews · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Schedule lease and permit reviews before due dates.

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. Lease ID; expiry; conditions; review date; arrears; responsible office.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — lease reviews · 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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

3. Target gaps in state-land record digitizationDEC-DP24-003 · Digitization · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Target gaps in state-land record digitization.

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

Other required evidence. Land-record frame; digitized records; verification status; geography; document type.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — digitization · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

4. Address delays in administrative land requestsDEC-DP24-004 · Processing performance · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Address delays in administrative land requests.

Validation required

Method. 100 × verified completed members / original unique cohort. Keep unknown follow-up separate; stages are nested, not independent populations.

Next step. Review evidence. Address stage bottlenecks, follow up dropouts, or revise service delivery.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Unique original cohort entrants [cases]; Entrants reviewed [cases]; Entrants with verified completion [cases]; Entrants with unknown follow-up [cases]

Other required evidence. Case timestamps; stage; pauses; approved targets; office; final outcome.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — processing performance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Unique original cohort entrants	180	cases
Entrants reviewed	132	cases
Entrants with verified completion	96	cases
Entrants with unknown follow-up	12	cases
Verified completion share	53.333	%
Not verified complete	84	cases

Attendance, receipt, adoption, delivered service and outcomes are distinct stages. Repeated visits must not become new people.

Proposed checking role. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

After the action. Verified progression, waiting times and outcomes for the same cohort.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

5. Refer allocation cases with complete eligibility evidenceDEC-DP24-005 · Land allocation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer allocation cases with complete eligibility evidence.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. 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. Applicant; Applicant evidence reference; parcel; parcel evidence reference; purpose; purpose evidence reference; current rules; current rules evidence reference; prior allocations; prior allocations evidence reference; documentary evidence; documentary evidence evidence reference

Other required evidence. Applicant; parcel; purpose; current rules; prior allocations; documentary evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — land allocation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Applicant	Missing
Applicant evidence reference
parcel	Documented
parcel evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
purpose	Documented
purpose evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
current rules	Documented
current rules evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
prior allocations	Documented
prior allocations evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
documentary evidence	Documented
documentary evidence 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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

6. Resolve conflicting state-land parcel recordsDEC-DP24-006 · Boundary reconciliation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve conflicting state-land parcel records.

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 [ha]; Independent comparison measurement [ha]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition

Other required evidence. Parcel ID; survey plan; cadastral geometry; registered extent; edition.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — boundary reconciliation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Original source measurement	100	ha
Independent comparison measurement	90	ha
Original measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Comparison measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Compared measure and definition	Sample comparable ha measure; same input scope
Difference	-10	ha
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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

7. Compare and correct differences in assessed rents collections and outstanding balancesDEC-DP24-007 · Lease revenue · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Reconcile assessed rents collections and outstanding balances.

Validation required

Method. Opening + receipts/additions − payments/reductions − other documented adjustments. Compare with independently recorded closing. A negative cash scenario is a shortfall, not an invalid water volume.

Next step. Reconcile closing balance. Investigate unexplained balances and propose revised measurement or operating action.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Opening cash/receivable balance [LKR]; Receipts and documented additions [LKR]; Payments and documented reductions [LKR]; Other documented non-overlapping adjustments [LKR]; Independently recorded closing balance [LKR]

Other required evidence. Lease; assessed rent; payments; adjustments; due dates; period; currency.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — lease revenue · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Opening cash/receivable balance	160,000	LKR
Receipts and documented additions	48,000	LKR
Payments and documented reductions	35,000	LKR
Other documented non-overlapping adjustments	9,000	LKR
Independently recorded closing balance	163,500	LKR
Calculated closing balance	164,000	LKR
Recorded minus calculated closing	-500	LKR

Use the same physical boundary, period and units. A residual is a reconciliation issue, not automatically a measured loss.

Proposed checking role. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

After the action. Reconciled balance residuals and verified operating results.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

8. Choose what to handle first: overdue lease revenue casesDEC-DP24-008 · Arrears follow-up · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize overdue lease revenue 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. Account; due date; outstanding amount; dispute status; approved recovery process.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — arrears follow-up · 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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

9. Refer non-compliance with recorded land-use conditionsDEC-DP24-009 · Permit conditions · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer non-compliance with recorded land-use conditions.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Permit version; Permit version evidence reference; required use; required use evidence reference; inspection findings; inspection findings evidence reference; due dates; due dates evidence reference; evidence; evidence evidence reference; authority; authority evidence reference

Other required evidence. Permit version; required use; inspection findings; due dates; evidence; authority.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — permit conditions · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Permit version	Missing
Permit version evidence reference
required use	Documented
required use evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
inspection findings	Documented
inspection findings evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
due dates	Documented
due dates evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
evidence	Documented
evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
authority	Documented
authority evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

10. Refer succession and transfer requests for determinationDEC-DP24-010 · Succession cases · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer succession and transfer requests for 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. Permit; Permit evidence reference; applicant evidence; applicant evidence evidence reference; legal documents; legal documents evidence reference; claims; claims evidence reference; current rules; current rules evidence reference; objections; objections evidence reference

Other required evidence. Permit; applicant evidence; legal documents; claims; current rules; objections.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — succession cases · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Permit	Missing
Permit evidence reference
applicant evidence	Documented
applicant evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
legal documents	Documented
legal documents evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
claims	Documented
claims evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
current rules	Documented
current rules evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
objections	Documented
objections 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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

11. Compare suitable state parcels for public facilitiesDEC-DP24-011 · Public-purpose land · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare suitable state parcels for public facilities.

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. Parcel availability; service need; constraints; access; tenure; costs; alternatives.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Record reconciliation · 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 suitable state parcels for public facilities; Parcel availability and service need 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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

12. Resolve outstanding claims and objections before determinationDEC-DP24-012 · Land disputes · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve outstanding claims and objections before determination.

Validation required

Method. 100 × distinct respondents / invited people. Record unresolved issues individually; one respondent may raise several issues.

Next step. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Address concerns, revise the proposal, seek required responses, or escalate unresolved conditions.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Distinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible

Other required evidence. Parcel; parties; claim evidence; consultation; hearing record; unresolved issues.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — land disputes · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Distinct relevant people invited	95	people
People who responded	68	people
Unresolved issues	16	issues
Proposal/version being discussed	Sample proposal1
Required participation channels accessible	Unknown
Response share	71.579	%
Unresolved issues	16	issues

Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights.

Proposed checking role. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

After the action. Resolved concerns, participation and compliance with recorded commitments.

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

Institution and data context

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

13. Review allocation requests overlapping protected reservationsDEC-DP24-013 · Land reservations · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review allocation requests overlapping protected reservations.

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. Proposed parcel; reservation geometry; legal edition; overlap; custodian evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — land reservations · 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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

14. Check documentation for inter-agency land transfersDEC-DP24-014 · Institutional handover · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Verify documentation for inter-agency land transfers.

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. Parcel; Parcel evidence reference; receiving agency; receiving agency evidence reference; authorization; authorization evidence reference; survey; survey evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference; handover evidence; handover evidence evidence reference

Other required evidence. Parcel; receiving agency; authorization; survey; conditions; handover evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — institutional handover · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parcel	Missing
Parcel evidence reference
receiving agency	Documented
receiving agency evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
authorization	Documented
authorization evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
survey	Documented
survey evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
conditions	Documented
conditions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
handover evidence	Documented
handover evidence 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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

15. Refer suspected unauthorized occupation for investigationDEC-DP24-015 · Unauthorized occupation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer suspected unauthorized occupation 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. Occupation evidence; parcel; permit registry; date; survey uncertainty; authority.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — unauthorized occupation · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

16. Request valuation updates where lease assessments are outdatedDEC-DP24-016 · Valuation review · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Request valuation updates where lease assessments are outdated.

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. Parcel; valuation date; reviewed rental basis; lease terms; review due date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — valuation review · 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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

17. Review whether allocated land serves approved purposesDEC-DP24-017 · Land-use effectiveness · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Review whether allocated land serves approved purposes.

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 [ha]; Observed value [ha]

Other required evidence. Allocation purpose; actual use; inspection date; outputs; conditions; history.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — land-use effectiveness · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

18. Determine permitted release of land and applicant informationDEC-DP24-018 · Record access · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Determine permitted release of land and applicant information.

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. Requested fields; Requested fields evidence reference; purpose; purpose evidence reference; rights; rights evidence reference; classification; classification evidence reference; scope; scope evidence reference; approval; approval evidence reference; validity; validity evidence reference

Other required evidence. Requested fields; purpose; rights; classification; scope; approval; validity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — record access · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Requested fields	Missing
Requested fields evidence reference
purpose	Documented
purpose evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
rights	Documented
rights evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
classification	Documented
classification evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
scope	Documented
scope evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
approval	Documented
approval evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
validity	Documented
validity 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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

19. Correct missing references in electronic land filesDEC-DP24-019 · Document quality · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Correct missing references in electronic land files.

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. Case ID; Case ID evidence reference; document type; document type evidence reference; survey reference; survey reference evidence reference; issuer; issuer evidence reference; date; date evidence reference; version; version evidence reference; authenticity; authenticity evidence reference

Other required evidence. Case ID; document type; survey reference; issuer; date; version; authenticity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — document quality · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Case ID	Missing
Case ID evidence reference
document type	Documented
document type evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
survey reference	Documented
survey reference evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
issuer	Documented
issuer evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
date	Documented
date evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
version	Documented
version evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
authenticity	Documented
authenticity 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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

20. Allocate case-processing capacity across land officesDEC-DP24-020 · Office capacity · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Allocate case-processing capacity across land offices.

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 [staff hours]; Rated capacity for that period [staff hours]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [staff hours]

Other required evidence. Case backlog; complexity; handling time; staff availability; service deadlines.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — office capacity · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Demand in the selected period	150	staff hours
Rated capacity for that period	180	staff hours
Unavailable or restricted capacity	45	staff hours
Usable capacity minus demand	-15	staff hours
Usable capacity	135	staff 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. State-land officer, legal/document reviewer and survey professional.

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

State land administration services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
State Land Information Management System — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

Field	Unit	Required
District Name	Confirm if needed	No
District Code	Confirm if needed	No
Province Name	Confirm if needed	No
Province Code	Confirm if needed	No
Adjusted 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
Luse_Code	Confirm if needed	No
Main_Category	Confirm if needed	No
Sub_Category	Confirm if needed	No
Tank_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Method_of_Updation	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Updation	Confirm if needed	No
Sheet_No	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Type_ROW	Confirm if needed	No
Road_Width	Confirm if needed	No
Road Width	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Transport_point_ID	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
Parcel ID	Confirm if needed	No
Parcel er	Confirm if needed	No
Parcel st	Confirm if needed	No
Parcel Date	Confirm if needed	No
Parcel tp	Confirm if needed	No
Parcel or	Confirm if needed	No
Sheet ID	Confirm if needed	No
Creation Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No
St Area	Confirm if needed	No
St Length	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
type	Confirm if needed	No
pcl_id_cov	Confirm if needed	No
lot_no	Confirm if needed	No
sht_id_con	Confirm if needed	No
plan_no	Confirm if needed	No
inset_no	Confirm if needed	No
sup_no	Confirm if needed	No
sheet_no	Confirm if needed	No
di_name	Confirm if needed	No
ds_name	Confirm if needed	No
name	Confirm if needed	No
spcific_pu	Confirm if needed	No
tenure_act	Confirm if needed	No
esri_oid	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Plot Number	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
Area_Sq_Meters	Confirm if needed	No
Present Status	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?

Land Commissioner General's Department

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?