HARTI

Tell us what to change or add.

1. Check a decision

Open a decision below. Check the area, period, inputs, result and proposed next step.

2. Try the inputs

Use Example input to change a sample. Use Source input to check the fields and source details. The land-use change decision has its own comparison views.

Record your corrections below, then download your answers or print them.

3. Check each decision

1. Check large comparable farmgate wholesale and retail spreadsDEC-DP25-001 · Price spreads · Suggested priority: High
Try this decision

Investigate large comparable farmgate wholesale and retail spreads.

Validation required

Quoted net return per purchased kg — fictional 2025 examples

Method. Quoted spread = sell−buy. Net scenario return per purchased kg = sell×(1−loss%/100)−buy−matching transfer costs.

Next step. Review evidence. Compare sales/procurement alternatives, investigate stale quotes, or improve market coverage.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Comparable purchase quotation [LKR/kg]; Comparable selling quotation [LKR/kg]; Non-overlapping transfer costs [LKR/kg]; Expected saleable mass loss [%]; Product, grade and price basis

Other required evidence. Commodity; grade; market role; price; unit; date; transfer costs.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — price spreads · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Comparable purchase quotation180LKR/kg
Comparable selling quotation222LKR/kg
Non-overlapping transfer costs20LKR/kg
Expected saleable mass loss5%
Product, grade and price basisSample same product and grade
Quoted net return per purchased kg10.9LKR/kg
Unadjusted quoted spread42LKR/kg

Use matching grade, price date, currency, mass basis and payment terms. This quotation scenario excludes unlisted costs and is not realized profit or a forecast.

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

After the action. Realized net proceeds and comparable market-price movement.

  • 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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
2. Choose what to handle first: commodities with unusual price variabilityDEC-DP25-002 · Price volatility · Suggested priority: High
Try this decision

Prioritize commodities with unusual price variability.

Verified published formula · Sample coefficient of variation

Observed value — fictional 2025 examples

Method. Display observations in dated order. Sample SD uses n−1; coefficient of variation = 100 × SD / positive mean.

Next step. Review evidence. Adjust procurement, sales or reserve plans within agreed risk limits.

Inputs, example and sources

National Institute of Standards and Technology United States · Dataplot Coefficient of Variation
Government publication · Description, sample coefficient of variation and ratio-scale restrictions

Use a meaningful zero and positive mean. Local series selection and decision limits still need confirmation.

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

Analysis inputs. Comparable observation [LKR/kg]

Other required evidence. Regular prices; commodity grade; market; observation dates; baseline; missingness.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — price volatility · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Comparable observation104LKR/kg
Observed value104LKR/kg

Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend.

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

After the action. Realized price exposure, losses and forecast error if a model is used.

  • NIST Coefficient of Variation — Government publication. Definition of sample CV. Published sample SD/mean ratio; positive ratio-scale mean is needed.
  • 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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
3. Inform seasonal marketing using comparable historical patternsDEC-DP25-003 · Seasonal markets · Suggested priority: Medium
Try this decision

Inform seasonal marketing using comparable historical patterns.

Validation required

Observed value — fictional 2025 examples

Method. Display observations in dated order. Sample SD uses n−1; coefficient of variation = 100 × SD / positive mean.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate persistent changes, review the operating plan, or extend monitoring.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Comparable observation [LKR/kg]

Other required evidence. Multi-year prices; season; market; grade; inflation basis; observation coverage.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — seasonal markets · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Comparable observation104LKR/kg
Observed value104LKR/kg

Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend.

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

After the action. Trend and uncertainty after action using the same definition.

  • SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
Institution and data context
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
4. Find markets requiring closer price-distribution studyDEC-DP25-004 · Market comparisons · Suggested priority: Medium
Try this decision

Identify markets requiring closer price-distribution study.

Validation required

Observed value — fictional 2025 examples

Method. Display observations in dated order. Sample SD uses n−1; coefficient of variation = 100 × SD / positive mean.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate disparities or outliers, target follow-up, or revise sampling.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Comparable observation [LKR/kg]

Other required evidence. Commodity; grade; comparable price quotes; market; period; sample count.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — market comparisons · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Comparable observation104LKR/kg
Observed value104LKR/kg

Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend.

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

After the action. Distribution and uncertainty after intervention with unchanged definitions.

  • 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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
5. Expand observations where price reporting is incompleteDEC-DP25-005 · Market coverage · Suggested priority: High
Try this decision

Expand observations where price reporting is incomplete.

Validation required

Verified coverage — fictional 2025 examples

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

Other required evidence. Market frame; commodity list; required quotes; valid quotes; collection dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — market coverage · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Required eligible frame100quotes
Distinct members of that frame covered65quotes
Frame members with unknown coverage5quotes
Verified coverage65%
Known uncovered30quotes
Unknown coverage5quotes

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

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
6. Compare documented food-basket costs across locationsDEC-DP25-006 · Food affordability · Suggested priority: High
Try this decision

Compare documented food-basket costs across locations.

Validation required

Item expenditure — fictional 2025 examples

Method. Specified quantity × comparable unit price. Sum only non-overlapping items from the same basket specification, location and price period.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate cost drivers, compare suppliers/practices, or revise the budget proposal.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Specified basket/input quantity [kg]; Comparable unit price [LKR/kg]; Item, grade and basket specification

Other required evidence. Basket composition; quantities; local prices; income benchmark; period; definitions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — food affordability · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Specified basket/input quantity5kg
Comparable unit price220LKR/kg
Item, grade and basket specificationSample comparable item / grade
Item expenditure1,100LKR

An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable.

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

After the action. Actual comparable unit cost and service/output 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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
7. Check enterprise margins for policy researchDEC-DP25-007 · Farmer returns · Suggested priority: High
Try this decision

Assess enterprise margins for policy research.

Verified published formula · Enterprise gross margin

Enterprise gross margin — fictional 2025 examples

Method. Gross margin = saleable output × realized price − variable costs. Divide by matching hectares for margin/ha; variable-cost break-even price = variable costs / output.

Next step. Review evidence. Choose a feasible enterprise option, adjust variable inputs, or review price and yield risk.

Inputs, example and sources

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Farm Management for Asia A Systems Approach
Institution publication · Chapter 4, Gross margin and section 4.7.1

Per-hectare and variable-cost break-even outputs are algebraic rearrangements. Local costs, prices and interpretation still need confirmation.

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

Analysis inputs. Saleable output [kg]; Realized price [LKR/kg]; Variable costs [LKR]; Matching crop area [ha]

Other required evidence. Crop revenue; variable costs; hectares; production system; sample weights.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — farmer returns · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Saleable output3,800kg
Realized price112LKR/kg
Variable costs295,000LKR
Matching crop area1ha
Enterprise gross margin130,600LKR
Gross margin per hectare130,600LKR/ha
Variable-cost break-even price77.632LKR/kg

Keep fixed costs, family-labour opportunity cost, taxes and financing identifiable. Gross margin is not net profit.

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

After the action. Realized gross margin and downside outcomes on the same basis.

  • FAO enterprise and activity budgeting — Institution publication. Section4 enterprise and activity budgeting. Published enterprise gross margin/revenue and variable-cost distinction.
  • 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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
8. Find value-chain stages requiring loss studiesDEC-DP25-008 · Marketing losses · Suggested priority: High
Try this decision

Identify value-chain stages requiring loss studies.

Validation required

Unaccounted physical share — fictional 2025 examples

Method. Unaccounted = input − saleable output − usable by-products − closing stock − transfers out. Share =100 × unaccounted / input.

Next step. Review evidence. Target the loss stage, compare prevention options, or improve missing measurement.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Batch input on stated moisture basis [kg]; Saleable output [kg]; Usable by-product [kg]; Closing stock [kg]; Documented transfers out [kg]

Other required evidence. Batch input; output; losses; quality degradation; stage; measurement protocol.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — marketing losses · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Batch input on stated moisture basis1,200kg
Saleable output970kg
Usable by-product85kg
Closing stock45kg
Documented transfers out20kg
Unaccounted physical share6.667%
Unaccounted mass80kg

Use a consistent moisture basis and process boundary. Unaccounted mass is not automatically avoidable food loss or spoilage.

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

After the action. Verified physical loss and quality loss on comparable batches.

  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
Institution and data context
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
9. Check persistent differences between connected marketsDEC-DP25-009 · Market integration · Suggested priority: Medium
Try this decision

Investigate persistent differences between connected markets.

Validation required

Quoted net return per purchased kg — fictional 2025 examples

Method. Quoted spread = sell−buy. Net scenario return per purchased kg = sell×(1−loss%/100)−buy−matching transfer costs.

Next step. Review evidence. Compare sales/procurement alternatives, investigate stale quotes, or improve market coverage.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Comparable purchase quotation [LKR/kg]; Comparable selling quotation [LKR/kg]; Non-overlapping transfer costs [LKR/kg]; Expected saleable mass loss [%]; Product, grade and price basis

Other required evidence. Matched prices; transport costs; grade; trade flows; dates; restrictions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — market integration · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Comparable purchase quotation180LKR/kg
Comparable selling quotation222LKR/kg
Non-overlapping transfer costs20LKR/kg
Expected saleable mass loss5%
Product, grade and price basisSample same product and grade
Quoted net return per purchased kg10.9LKR/kg
Unadjusted quoted spread42LKR/kg

Use matching grade, price date, currency, mass basis and payment terms. This quotation scenario excludes unlisted costs and is not realized profit or a forecast.

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

After the action. Realized net proceeds and comparable market-price movement.

  • 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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
10. Compare agricultural policy outcomes with credible comparisonsDEC-DP25-010 · Policy evaluation · Suggested priority: High
Try this decision

Evaluate agricultural policy outcomes with credible comparisons.

Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic

Difference in changes — fictional 2025 examples

Method. (Treatment after−before) − (comparison after−before), using the same outcome definition and periods.

Next step. Supply study-design evidence. Continue, adapt, expand or stop a programme based on defensible outcome evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

World Bank · Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition
Institution publication · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170

The formula is verified. Causal interpretation still requires a defensible study design, comparison and assumptions.

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

Analysis inputs. Treatment Real enterprise income on stated price basis before [LKR/ha]; Treatment Real enterprise income on stated price basis after [LKR/ha]; Comparison Real enterprise income on stated price basis before [LKR/ha]; Comparison Real enterprise income on stated price basis after [LKR/ha]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Policy exposure; baseline; follow-up; comparison group; prices; weather; confounders.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — policy evaluation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Treatment Real enterprise income on stated price basis before420,000LKR/ha
Treatment Real enterprise income on stated price basis after590,000LKR/ha
Comparison Real enterprise income on stated price basis before390,000LKR/ha
Comparison Real enterprise income on stated price basis after460,000LKR/ha
Study design and comparability evidenceMissing
Outcome definition, method and reference basisReal enterprise income on stated price basis /example matching definition1
Difference in changes100,000LKR/ha

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

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

After the action. Verified outcomes, costs, distributional effects and evidence strength.

  • World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition — Institution publication. Chapter7 difference-in-differences. Published difference-in-differences estimator and study assumptions; aggregate examples do not establish causation.
  • SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
Institution and data context
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
11. Check shifts in agricultural input expenditureDEC-DP25-011 · Input markets · Suggested priority: Medium
Try this decision

Investigate shifts in agricultural input expenditure.

Validation required

Item expenditure — fictional 2025 examples

Method. Specified quantity × comparable unit price. Sum only non-overlapping items from the same basket specification, location and price period.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate cost drivers, compare suppliers/practices, or revise the budget proposal.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Specified basket/input quantity [kg]; Comparable unit price [LKR/kg]; Item, grade and basket specification

Other required evidence. Input type; price; quantity; location; period; farm system.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — input markets · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Specified basket/input quantity5kg
Comparable unit price220LKR/kg
Item, grade and basket specificationSample comparable item / grade
Item expenditure1,100LKR

An absent or zero denominator has no unit-cost result. Keep fixed, variable and opportunity costs identifiable.

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

After the action. Actual comparable unit cost and service/output 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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
12. Find organizational barriers to collective marketingDEC-DP25-012 · Farmer organization research · Suggested priority: High
Try this decision

Identify organizational barriers to collective marketing.

Validation required

Budget remaining after option — fictional 2025 examples

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. Organization evidence; participation; costs; sales outcomes; governance; research design.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Market observation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Option cost1,500,000LKR
Available budget1,800,000LKR
Mandatory constraintsMet
Expected benefit and its evidenceIdentify organizational barriers to collective marketing; Organization evidence and participation evidence needed
Resource needs and adverse effectsSample water, labour, access and safeguard trade-offs
Budget remaining after option300,000LKR

Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved.

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
13. Review farm labour costs and labour-use differencesDEC-DP25-013 · Land and labour · Suggested priority: Medium
Try this decision

Review farm labour costs and labour-use differences.

Validation required

Cash labour cost per hectare — fictional 2025 examples

Method. Cash cost/ha = hired days×cash wage/area. Total effort/ha=(hired+unpaid family days)/area. Do not value unpaid labour as zero opportunity cost.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate low productivity, compare practices, or improve the input/output measurements.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Person-days worked [person-days]; Cash wage per hired person-day [LKR/person-day]; Matching cultivated area [ha]; Unpaid family labour [person-days]

Other required evidence. Labour days; wages; crop; season; hectares; family and hired labour.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — land and labour · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Person-days worked45person-days
Cash wage per hired person-day3,200LKR/person-day
Matching cultivated area2ha
Unpaid family labour12person-days
Cash labour cost per hectare72,000LKR/ha
Total labour per hectare28.5person-days/ha

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

After the action. Output per relevant input alongside quality and resource impacts.

  • 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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
14. Choose what to handle first: research on documented market supply shocksDEC-DP25-014 · Food supply disruptions · Suggested priority: High
Try this decision

Prioritize research on documented market supply shocks.

Validation required

Difference — fictional 2025 examples

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Arrivals; prices; transport interruptions; crop output; event timing; baseline.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — food supply disruptions · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Comparable reference value100kg
Later/comparison value90kg
Difference-10kg
Relative change-10%

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

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

  • SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
Institution and data context
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
15. Compare storage and handling options for perishablesDEC-DP25-015 · Storage investments · Suggested priority: Medium
Try this decision

Compare storage and handling options for perishables.

Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV

Five-year net present value — fictional 2025 examples

Method. NPV = −initial investment + sum of year1…5 net cash flows discounted at the stated annual rate, including residual value once in year5.

Next step. Review evidence. Compare feasible investments, adjust the scope, or defer pending finance/evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · Guidelines for defining financial economic environmental and social information
Institution publication · Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, discounting and Net Present Value

The five-year horizon, discount rate and cash assumptions are local settings. Verification does not approve an investment or loan.

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

Analysis inputs. Initial investment [LKR]; Net cash flow year1 [LKR]; Net cash flow year2 [LKR]; Net cash flow year3 [LKR]; Net cash flow year4 [LKR]; Net cash flow year5 [LKR]; Residual value at end of year5 [LKR]; Example discount rate [%]

Other required evidence. Storage costs; losses; capacity; price seasonality; energy; shelf life.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — storage investments · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Initial investment2,400,000LKR
Net cash flow year1400,000LKR
Net cash flow year2550,000LKR
Net cash flow year3680,000LKR
Net cash flow year4720,000LKR
Net cash flow year5760,000LKR
Residual value at end of year5120,000LKR
Example discount rate8%
Five-year net present value109,847.353LKR

Match currency, price year, real/nominal basis and cash-flow timing. The example rate and five-year horizon are assumptions, not institutional financing terms; no credit approval follows.

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

After the action. Realized cash flows, benefits and costs versus the approved appraisal.

Institution and data context
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
16. Select agrarian research sampling strategiesDEC-DP25-016 · Survey design · Suggested priority: Medium
Try this decision

Select agrarian research sampling strategies.

Validation required

Budget remaining after option — fictional 2025 examples

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. Target population; strata; expected variability; research question; cost; precision.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Market observation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Option cost1,500,000LKR
Available budget1,800,000LKR
Mandatory constraintsMet
Expected benefit and its evidenceSelect agrarian research sampling strategies; Target population and strata evidence needed
Resource needs and adverse effectsSample water, labour, access and safeguard trade-offs
Budget remaining after option300,000LKR

Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved.

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
17. Resolve contradictory market observations before releaseDEC-DP25-017 · Publication quality · Suggested priority: High
Try this decision

Resolve contradictory market observations before release.

Validation required

Difference — fictional 2025 examples

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/kg]; Independent comparison measurement [LKR/kg]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition

Other required evidence. Observation ID; independent quote; unit; grade; collection date; verification.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — publication quality · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Original source measurement100LKR/kg
Independent comparison measurement90LKR/kg
Original measurement unitSample matching unit
Comparison measurement unitSample matching unit
Compared measure and definitionSample comparable LKR/kg measure; same input scope
Difference-10LKR/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. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
18. Target agrarian training to documented capability gapsDEC-DP25-018 · Training priorities · Suggested priority: Medium
Try this decision

Target agrarian training to documented capability gaps.

Validation required

Verified coverage — fictional 2025 examples

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

Other required evidence. Needs assessment; participant frame; previous training; adoption; location.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — training priorities · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Required eligible frame100quotes
Distinct members of that frame covered65quotes
Frame members with unknown coverage5quotes
Verified coverage65%
Known uncovered30quotes
Unknown coverage5quotes

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

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
19. Choose what to handle first: policy-analysis requests by decision deadlinesDEC-DP25-019 · Research requests · Suggested priority: Lower
Try this decision

Prioritize policy-analysis requests by decision deadlines.

Validation required

Open days past due — fictional 2025 examples

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. Request; question; responsible institution; evidence availability; due date; analyst capacity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — research requests · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Received or defect observed2025-04-01
Recorded due date2025-06-01
Assessment date2025-06-30
Case/work closedNo
Documented critical unresolved conditionUnknown
Responsible office or maintainerProposed responsible office
Actual closure date when closed
Open days past due29days
Calendar age90days

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. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision
20. Independently reproduce agrarian research findingsDEC-DP25-020 · Evidence reproducibility · Suggested priority: High
Try this decision

Independently reproduce agrarian research findings.

Validation required

Difference — fictional 2025 examples

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 [LKR/ha]; Independently reproduced value [LKR/ha]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [LKR/ha]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer

Other required evidence. Dataset edition; survey design; code; model; assumptions; result; reviewer.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — evidence reproducibility · Laggala Pallegama

Input or resultValueUnit
Earlier/source value100LKR/ha
Independently reproduced value90LKR/ha
Original measurement unitSample matching unit
Comparison measurement unitSample matching unit
Compared measure and definitionSample comparable LKR/ha measure; same input scope
Documented absolute comparison tolerance0.01LKR/ha
Expected input/method versionSample input1 /method1
Reproduced input/method versionSample input1 /method1
Original result creatorPreparation officer
Independent reproducerIndependent checking officer
Difference-10LKR/ha
Relative change-10%

Proposed checking role. Agricultural economist, market analyst and survey statistician.

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
  • HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • HARTI annual report 2024 — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
  • FAO food loss measurement — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

Your checks for this decision

4. Existing data forms for your institution

Check which existing source fields can supply the decision inputs.

Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-28 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: 5ef25f806a9c3864

FieldUnitRequired
CommodityConfirm if neededNo
MarketConfirm if neededNo
DateConfirm if neededNo
Average priceConfirm if neededNo
UnitConfirm if neededNo
Source pageConfirm if neededNo
Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-27 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: 65fb55fc4bacaeb4

FieldUnitRequired
CommodityConfirm if neededNo
MarketConfirm if neededNo
DateConfirm if neededNo
Average priceConfirm if neededNo
UnitConfirm if neededNo
Source pageConfirm if neededNo
Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-26 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: 3d27791c0b26d5a7

FieldUnitRequired
CommodityConfirm if neededNo
MarketConfirm if neededNo
DateConfirm if neededNo
Average priceConfirm if neededNo
UnitConfirm if neededNo
Source pageConfirm if neededNo
Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-23 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: 362fe913ea87b4d5

FieldUnitRequired
CommodityConfirm if neededNo
MarketConfirm if neededNo
DateConfirm if neededNo
Average priceConfirm if neededNo
UnitConfirm if neededNo
Source pageConfirm if neededNo
Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-22 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: 4c6b93b0f4ec772d

FieldUnitRequired
CommodityConfirm if neededNo
MarketConfirm if neededNo
DateConfirm if neededNo
Average priceConfirm if neededNo
UnitConfirm if neededNo
Source pageConfirm if neededNo
Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-21 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: edf7d040b8bcbc45

FieldUnitRequired
CommodityConfirm if neededNo
MarketConfirm if neededNo
DateConfirm if neededNo
Average priceConfirm if neededNo
UnitConfirm if neededNo
Source pageConfirm if neededNo
Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-20 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: f462aa65988abf9a

FieldUnitRequired
CommodityConfirm if neededNo
MarketConfirm if neededNo
DateConfirm if neededNo
Average priceConfirm if neededNo
UnitConfirm if neededNo
Source pageConfirm if neededNo

5. Documents and images

Your institution has its own document and image library. Use the same library for reports, photos and other evidence.

HARTI Documents and images prototype screen
HARTI. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

  1. Open Documents and images. Check the institution name.
  2. Use All files, Documents or Images to find a file. Open its preview or download the original.
  3. Use a sample file to try Add file. Private is the starting choice. Public needs a source, permission to share and review.
  4. Use Access preview to try the institution reviewer and Public visitor views.

Files added in the prototype stay in this browser. Public sharing is an access preview. Existing public reference links already work online.

What your institution needs to confirm

6. Data structure management

Data structure keeps the existing source tree, records, charts and map. Manage structure adds a place to propose changes to definitions.

HARTI Data structure management prototype screen
HARTI. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

  1. Open Data structure and choose Manage structure.
  2. Use Add base domain for a main information area. Add inside creates a subject area, a nested subject, an entity type or a field under the right parent.
  3. Give the definition a clear name, code and meaning. Reuse an existing definition when the meaning is the same.
  4. For a field, check the data type, unit, required value, limits and missing-value rule. Save a Draft, then try the separate reviewer view.

An entity type means a kind of thing or event, such as a reservoir or an inspection. Drafts stay in this browser. A demo approval does not change real definitions, data, chart links or sharing rights.

What your institution needs to confirm

7. Users and access

User management shows example profiles for each institution. People and Roles and access let you review the proposed account screens.

HARTI Users and access prototype screen
HARTI. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

  1. Open User management and choose the institution. The rows are examples, not a list of your staff.
  2. Use View access to check a role. An administrator title alone does not give access to Private files.
  3. Try Preview invitation or Preview access change. Check the role, start date, optional end date and reason.
  4. Review the example permissions and tell us which job roles should receive each one.

These are interface previews only. They create no account, send no email and change no access. Use example details in the preview. Institution verification does not grant a real permission.

What your institution needs to confirm

8. Can you share data regularly?

We currently use public data and published reports where available. Please confirm whether your institution can provide data directly, so we can avoid retyping or reading figures from PDFs.

Do not enter passwords, access keys or private account details.

9. Anything else we should change?

Use the Download answers button at the top of this page. Share the downloaded file or printed copy through your agreed review channel. Nothing is sent automatically.