Export Development Board

1. Choose what to handle first: products and destination markets for supportDEC-DP26-001 · Export destinations · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize products and destination markets for support.

Validation required

Method. Compute export-value and quantity shares independently within compatible product and reporting frames; never add currency and kilograms.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate material differences and redirect planning or field verification where justified.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Recorded export value [LKR]; Matching export quantity [kg]; Product code, destination and grade

Other required evidence. Product code; export value; quantity; destination; period; market requirements.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Pepper — India · Sri Lanka export reporting frame

Input or result	Value	Unit
Recorded export value	900,000	LKR
Matching export quantity	500	kg
Product code, destination and grade	Pepper — India
Export value	900,000	LKR
Value share	10.749	%
Quantity share	17.986	%

Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy.

Proposed checking role. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

After the action. Change in the approved composition indicator with coverage disclosed.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

2. Find excessive dependence on few export marketsDEC-DP26-002 · Market dependence · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify excessive dependence on few export markets.

Verified published component · HHI concentration component

Method. Category share = 100 × category amount / total compatible category amounts. HHI = sum of squared fractional shares, displayed on a 0–1 scale.

Next step. Review evidence. Diversify feasible exposure, manage a dependency, or retain it with an approved rationale.

Inputs, example and sources

United States Department of Justice · Herfindahl Hirschman Index
Government publication · Definition and four-firm worked example

The screen uses fractional shares on a 0–1 scale, equivalent to the published percentage-share score divided by 10000. Local exposure categories and policy thresholds are not verified by this source.

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

Analysis inputs. Compatible category amount [LKR]

Other required evidence. Product; destination values; total exports; period; alternative markets.

Fictional worked example · 2025

India · Sri Lanka export reporting frame

Input or result	Value	Unit
Compatible category amount	95	LKR
Category amount	95	LKR
Share of selected total	4.762	%

Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy.

Proposed checking role. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

After the action. Counterparty shares, exposure and realized service/market outcomes.

US Department of Justice Herfindahl Hirschman Index — Government publication. HHI definition. Published squared-market-share concentration measure. Prototype uses fractional0–1 scale and no competition-policy threshold.
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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

3. Target product groups contributing to export growthDEC-DP26-003 · Growth opportunities · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Target product groups contributing to export growth.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Product classification; comparable export values; years; revisions; currency.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — growth opportunities · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

4. Check changing export unit valuesDEC-DP26-004 · Unit values · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate changing export unit values.

Validation required

Method. Recorded export value / Export quantity on matching product basis, for the same product, process and period.

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. Recorded export value [LKR]; Export quantity on matching product basis [kg]

Other required evidence. Product; destination; value; quantity; units; grade; reporting period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — unit values · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Recorded export value	8,832,000	LKR
Export quantity on matching product basis	4,500	kg
Output per resource	1,962.667	LKR/kg

A unit value mixes prices and product composition. It is not automatically a like-for-like market price. Match grade, product code, currency and period.

Proposed checking role. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

5. Refer businesses to appropriate export-readiness supportDEC-DP26-005 · Exporter readiness · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer businesses to appropriate export-readiness support.

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. Enterprise; Enterprise evidence reference; product; product evidence reference; capacity; capacity evidence reference; compliance evidence; compliance evidence evidence reference; target market; target market evidence reference; readiness criteria; readiness criteria evidence reference

Other required evidence. Enterprise; product; capacity; compliance evidence; target market; readiness criteria.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — exporter readiness · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Enterprise	Missing
Enterprise evidence reference
product	Documented
product evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
capacity	Documented
capacity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
compliance evidence	Documented
compliance evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
target market	Documented
target market evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
readiness criteria	Documented
readiness criteria 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. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

6. Find unresolved market-entry requirementsDEC-DP26-006 · Market access · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify unresolved market-entry requirements.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Product; Product evidence reference; destination; destination evidence reference; current standards; current standards evidence reference; tariffs; tariffs evidence reference; certificates; certificates evidence reference; buyer requirements; buyer requirements evidence reference

Other required evidence. Product; destination; current standards; tariffs; certificates; buyer requirements.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — market access · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Product	Missing
Product evidence reference
destination	Documented
destination evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
current standards	Documented
current standards evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
tariffs	Documented
tariffs evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
certificates	Documented
certificates evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
buyer requirements	Documented
buyer requirements evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

7. Compare proposed trade-promotion activitiesDEC-DP26-007 · Trade promotion · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare proposed trade-promotion activities.

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. Target buyers; market demand; event costs; exporter readiness; expected outcomes.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Buyer meeting · 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 proposed trade-promotion activities; Target buyers and market demand 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. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

8. Match verified exporter offers with buyer requirementsDEC-DP26-008 · Buyer matching · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Match verified exporter offers with buyer requirements.

Validation required

Method. Compare the same specification and unit, uncommitted quantity and overlapping delivery windows. Keep mandatory quality and use conditions explicit.

Next step. Review quantity/capacity gap. Refer a feasible match for negotiation, request revised terms, or retain unmatched demand.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Offered product and grade; Required product and grade; Available uncommitted quantity [kg]; Required quantity [kg]; Supply available from; Supply available until; Delivery window begins; Delivery window ends; Required quality, rights and conditions

Other required evidence. Product; grade; quantity; delivery window; certifications; seller capacity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — buyer matching · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Offered product and grade	Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain
Required product and grade	Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain
Available uncommitted quantity	1,200	kg
Required quantity	1,500	kg
Supply available from	2025-06-01
Supply available until	2025-06-20
Delivery window begins	2025-06-05
Delivery window ends	2025-06-18
Required quality, rights and conditions	Met
Supply minus demand	-300	kg

A candidate match does not reserve stock, appoint a person, authorize waste reuse or form a contract.

Proposed checking role. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

After the action. Confirmed fulfilled matches, quality, timeliness and unresolved demand.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

9. Compare alternative products and markets under constraintsDEC-DP26-009 · Export diversification · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare alternative products and markets under constraints.

Validation required

Method. Budget minus option cost. Compare benefits, adverse effects and mandatory constraints separately; no weighted score or automatic best option.

Next step. Compare feasible trade-offs. Choose a feasible alternative with rationale and conditions, commission evidence, or defer.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Option cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects

Other required evidence. Product-market options; demand; costs; readiness; risks; concentration.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Buyer meeting · 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 alternative products and markets under constraints; Product-market options and demand 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. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

10. Target support to regions with uncovered export potentialDEC-DP26-010 · Exporter development · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Target support to regions with uncovered export potential.

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

Other required evidence. Eligible enterprises; support received; product potential; location; programme period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — exporter development · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

11. Choose what to handle first: corrective support after shipment nonconformitiesDEC-DP26-011 · Quality failures · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize corrective support after shipment nonconformities.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Shipment; rejection reason; specification; test result; supplier; corrective action.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — quality failures · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parameter and applicable use	Shipment moisture under buyer specification
Measured result	13	%
Example lower comparison bound	0	%
Example upper comparison bound	12	%
Original and limit unit	%
Sampling and analytical method/version	Sample laboratory method
Limit source, version and use	Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit
Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match	Yes
Result is below a reporting/detection limit	No
Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis	Sample stated sampling/averaging basis
Measured value	13	%

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

Proposed checking role. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

12. Compare product branding and certification investmentsDEC-DP26-012 · Brand development · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare product branding and certification investments.

Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV

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. Brand options; evidence; costs; target market; price effects; legal constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — brand development · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Initial investment	2,400,000	LKR
Net cash flow year1	400,000	LKR
Net cash flow year2	550,000	LKR
Net cash flow year3	680,000	LKR
Net cash flow year4	720,000	LKR
Net cash flow year5	760,000	LKR
Residual value at end of year5	120,000	LKR
Example discount rate	8	%
Five-year net present value	109,847.353	LKR

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. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

FAO Guidelines for financial economic environmental and social information — Institution publication. Section2 discounted cash-flow analysis and NPV. Published discounted cash-flow method; local rate, horizon and cash assumptions are separate.
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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

13. Compare realized outcomes of trade missionsDEC-DP26-013 · Promotion outcomes · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Evaluate realized outcomes of trade missions.

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. Participating firms; leads; contracts; verified sales; follow-up; comparison evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — promotion outcomes · 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. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

14. Escalate unresolved exporter market-access casesDEC-DP26-014 · Trade barriers · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Escalate unresolved exporter market-access 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. Case; destination; barrier; supporting evidence; receipt; due date; owner.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — trade barriers · 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. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

15. Target exporters needing digital market capabilityDEC-DP26-015 · Digital channels · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Target exporters needing digital market capability.

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

Other required evidence. Enterprise frame; digital readiness; training; verified channel use; support.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — digital channels · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

16. Review evidence supporting environmental product claimsDEC-DP26-016 · Sustainable exports · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review evidence supporting environmental product claims.

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. Claim; Claim evidence reference; product; product evidence reference; chain of custody; chain of custody evidence reference; certification; certification evidence reference; source rights; source rights evidence reference; verification; verification evidence reference

Other required evidence. Claim; product; chain of custody; certification; source rights; verification.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — sustainable exports · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Claim	Missing
Claim evidence reference
product	Documented
product evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
chain of custody	Documented
chain of custody evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
certification	Documented
certification evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
source rights	Documented
source rights evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
verification	Documented
verification 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. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

17. Compare export routes and delivery feasibilityDEC-DP26-017 · Logistics constraints · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare export routes and delivery feasibility.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Shipment; origin; destination; transport options; costs; transit times; restrictions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — logistics constraints · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

18. Compare and correct differences in export-support commitments and verified deliveryDEC-DP26-018 · Support funding · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Reconcile export-support commitments and verified delivery.

Validation required

Method. Unfunded = need − commitments. Undisbursed = commitments − disbursements. Unspent = disbursements − eligible spending.

Next step. Review unfunded need. Resolve funding gaps, release only authorized commitments, or revise the finance plan.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Approved financing need [LKR]; Confirmed commitments [LKR]; Funds actually disbursed [LKR]; Verified eligible expenditure [LKR]

Other required evidence. Programme budget; awards; commitments; disbursements; eligible costs; outputs.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — support funding · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Approved financing need	3,500,000	LKR
Confirmed commitments	2,650,000	LKR
Funds actually disbursed	1,640,000	LKR
Verified eligible expenditure	1,200,000	LKR
Unfunded need	850,000	LKR
Committed but not disbursed	1,010,000	LKR
Disbursed but not spent	440,000	LKR

Keep commitments, cash receipts, expenditure and verified physical outputs separate. Negative balances flag overcommitment or reconciliation; no automatic accounting adjustment.

Proposed checking role. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

After the action. Verified funding, spend and deliverables reconciled without double counting.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

19. Correct outdated or duplicate exporter profilesDEC-DP26-019 · Exporter directory · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Correct outdated or duplicate exporter profiles.

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. Enterprise identifier; Enterprise identifier evidence reference; products; products evidence reference; contact permission; contact permission evidence reference; verification date; verification date evidence reference; source; source evidence reference; duplicates; duplicates evidence reference

Other required evidence. Enterprise identifier; products; contact permission; verification date; source; duplicates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — exporter directory · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Enterprise identifier	Missing
Enterprise identifier evidence reference
products	Documented
products evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
contact permission	Documented
contact permission evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
verification date	Documented
verification date evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
source	Documented
source evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
duplicates	Documented
duplicates 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. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

20. Check outcomes of export-development interventionsDEC-DP26-020 · Export policy impact · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Assess outcomes of export-development interventions.

Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

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

Analysis inputs. Treatment Comparable export value before [LKR]; Treatment Comparable export value after [LKR]; Comparison Comparable export value before [LKR]; Comparison Comparable export value after [LKR]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Policy exposure; baseline exports; follow-up; comparison firms; market shocks.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — export policy impact · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Comparable export value before	420,000	LKR
Treatment Comparable export value after	590,000	LKR
Comparison Comparable export value before	390,000	LKR
Comparison Comparable export value after	460,000	LKR
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Comparable export value /example matching definition1
Difference in changes	100,000	LKR

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

Proposed checking role. Export development adviser and market/compliance specialist.

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

EDB export marketing services — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
EDB trade information — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

Field	Unit	Required
Sector	Confirm if needed	No
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Export earnings	USD million	No
Reporting basis	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Sector	Confirm if needed	No
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Export contribution	%	No
Reporting basis	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Sector	Confirm if needed	No
Market	Confirm if needed	No
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Export earnings	USD million	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?

Export Development Board

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?