National Enterprise Development Authority

1. Improve uptake of appropriate enterprise-support offersDEC-DP27-001 · Support uptake · Suggested priority: High

Improve uptake of appropriate enterprise-support offers.

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. Eligible enterprises; offers; accepted offers; participation; reasons for non-uptake.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — support uptake · 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Follow trainees needing subsequent business assistanceDEC-DP27-002 · Training progression · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Follow trainees needing subsequent business assistance.

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. Training cohort; completion; business plans; support referral; business establishment.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — training progression · 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Choose what to handle first: enterprise assistance cases waiting longestDEC-DP27-003 · Service delays · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prioritize enterprise assistance cases waiting longest.

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 ID; support type; receipt; due date; pauses; assigned adviser.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — service delays · 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Redirect outreach toward underserved target districtsDEC-DP27-004 · Geographic reach · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Redirect outreach toward underserved target districts.

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; eligible need; support received; district; programme period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — geographic reach · 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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 enterprise plans for financial and market appraisalDEC-DP27-005 · Business viability · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer enterprise plans for financial and market appraisal.

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. Sales assumptions; variable costs; fixed costs; cash flows; markets; risks.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — business viability · 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Match enterprises to suitable finance-support pathwaysDEC-DP27-006 · Finance referral · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Match enterprises to suitable finance-support pathways.

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. Enterprise needs; Enterprise needs evidence reference; finance product terms; finance product terms evidence reference; eligibility evidence; eligibility evidence evidence reference; repayment capacity; repayment capacity evidence reference; consent; consent evidence reference

Other required evidence. Enterprise needs; finance product terms; eligibility evidence; repayment capacity; consent.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — finance referral · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Enterprise needs	Missing
Enterprise needs evidence reference
finance product terms	Documented
finance product terms evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
eligibility evidence	Documented
eligibility evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
repayment capacity	Documented
repayment capacity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
consent	Documented
consent 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

After the action. Documented determinations, processing time and appeal outcomes.

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

Institution and data context

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Allocate mentors to documented enterprise needsDEC-DP27-007 · Mentoring · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Allocate mentors to documented enterprise needs.

Validation required

Method. Match documented expertise, available effort, date windows and required conflict/clearance evidence. A match suggests a candidate; it appoints nobody.

Next step. Resolve specification, window or conditions. 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. Documented skills/expertise; Task requirement; Available qualified effort [hours]; Required effort [hours]; Conflicts, clearance and mandate; Availability begins; Availability ends; Task window begins; Task window ends

Other required evidence. Enterprise need; mentor expertise; availability; conflicts; location; due date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — mentoring · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Documented skills/expertise	Sample required skill
Task requirement	Sample required skill
Available qualified effort	24	hours
Required effort	16	hours
Conflicts, clearance and mandate	Unresolved
Availability begins	2025-06-01
Availability ends	2025-06-20
Task window begins	2025-06-05
Task window ends	2025-06-18
Available minus required hours	8	hours

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

Proposed checking role. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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 enterprise products with verified buyer demandDEC-DP27-008 · Market linkages · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Match enterprise products with verified buyer demand.

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; capacity; delivery window; buyer demand; quality requirements.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — market linkages · 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Target follow-up to supported businesses at risk of closureDEC-DP27-009 · Enterprise survival · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Target follow-up to supported businesses at risk of closure.

Validation required

Method. Lower =100 × known survivors / original cohort. Upper =100 × (known survivors + unknown) / original cohort. Survivors + known failures + unknown = original cohort; replacements do not enter it.

Next step. Review evidence. Replace failed establishment, alter maintenance, or investigate site/treatment causes.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Original distinct cohort [enterprises]; Known operating enterprises [enterprises]; Known closed enterprises [enterprises]; Unknown follow-up [enterprises]; Later entrants outside original cohort [enterprises]

Other required evidence. Enterprise cohort; start date; operating status; follow-up; nonresponse; closure reasons.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — enterprise survival · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Original distinct cohort	450	enterprises
Known operating enterprises	351	enterprises
Known closed enterprises	70	enterprises
Unknown follow-up	29	enterprises
Later entrants outside original cohort	18	enterprises
Confirmed continuation lower bound	78	%
Continuation upper bound	84.444	%
Unknown follow-up	29	enterprises

These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits.

Proposed checking role. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

After the action. Survival of the original cohort, replacements and condition separately.

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

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Review changes in enterprise outcomes after assistanceDEC-DP27-010 · Business performance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review changes in enterprise outcomes after assistance.

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 Real enterprise sales on stated price basis before [LKR]; Treatment Real enterprise sales on stated price basis after [LKR]; Comparison Real enterprise sales on stated price basis before [LKR]; Comparison Real enterprise sales on stated price basis after [LKR]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Baseline sales; follow-up sales; employment; costs; comparison firms; external factors.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — business performance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Real enterprise sales on stated price basis before	420,000	LKR
Treatment Real enterprise sales on stated price basis after	590,000	LKR
Comparison Real enterprise sales on stated price basis before	390,000	LKR
Comparison Real enterprise sales on stated price basis after	460,000	LKR
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Real enterprise sales on stated price basis /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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Address gaps in access to enterprise opportunitiesDEC-DP27-011 · Women and youth support · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Address gaps in access to enterprise opportunities.

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 enterprise frame; consented group attributes; offers; participation; outcomes.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — women and youth support · 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Refer complete enterprise-grant applications for determinationDEC-DP27-012 · Grant administration · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer complete enterprise-grant applications for determination.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Scheme version; Scheme version evidence reference; applicant evidence; applicant evidence evidence reference; budget; budget evidence reference; eligibility; eligibility evidence reference; prior support; prior support evidence reference; approvals; approvals evidence reference

Other required evidence. Scheme version; applicant evidence; budget; eligibility; prior support; approvals.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — grant administration · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Scheme version	Missing
Scheme version evidence reference
applicant evidence	Documented
applicant evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
budget	Documented
budget evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
eligibility	Documented
eligibility evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
prior support	Documented
prior support evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
approvals	Documented
approvals 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

After the action. Documented determinations, processing time and appeal outcomes.

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

Institution and data context

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

13. Review potentially overlapping enterprise subsidiesDEC-DP27-013 · Duplicate assistance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review potentially overlapping enterprise subsidies.

Validation required

Method. Compare the same permitted entity, purpose and qualifying unit. Intersect dated support intervals; overlapping support is a review flag, not proof of duplicate entitlement.

Next step. Review possible overlap. Resolve duplicate identity or overlapping support and decide permitted complementary assistance.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Permitted recipient/service reference; Support purpose; Earlier support period begins; Earlier support period ends; Other support period begins; Other support period ends; Same purpose and qualifying unit

Other required evidence. Enterprise ID; programme; support purpose; amount; period; entitlement evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — duplicate assistance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Permitted recipient/service reference	Laggala Pallegama — duplicate assistance
Support purpose	Sample seasonal input support
Earlier support period begins	2025-01-01
Earlier support period ends	2025-06-30
Other support period begins	2025-05-01
Other support period ends	2025-08-31
Same purpose and qualifying unit	Yes
Overlapping days	61	days

Proposed checking role. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

After the action. Confirmed unique support and unresolved overlap 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

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Choose what to handle first: training topics using verified capability gapsDEC-DP27-014 · Business skills · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prioritize training topics using verified capability gaps.

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. Needs assessments; skills; course availability; prior training; adoption evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Mentoring · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Option cost	1,500,000	LKR
Available budget	1,800,000	LKR
Mandatory constraints	Met
Expected benefit and its evidence	Prioritize training topics using verified capability gaps; Needs assessments and skills 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Find enterprises needing registration or compliance referralsDEC-DP27-015 · Formalization support · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Identify enterprises needing registration or compliance referrals.

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 stage; Enterprise stage evidence reference; required registrations; required registrations evidence reference; existing documents; existing documents evidence reference; gaps; gaps evidence reference; responsible agency; responsible agency evidence reference

Other required evidence. Enterprise stage; required registrations; existing documents; gaps; responsible agency.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — formalization support · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Enterprise stage	Missing
Enterprise stage evidence reference
required registrations	Documented
required registrations evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
existing documents	Documented
existing documents evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
gaps	Documented
gaps evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
responsible agency	Documented
responsible agency 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Compare enterprise adaptation optionsDEC-DP27-016 · Climate resilience · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare enterprise adaptation options.

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. Hazard exposure; business dependencies; adaptation costs; continuity benefits; constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Mentoring · 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 enterprise adaptation options; Hazard exposure and business dependencies 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

17. Allocate incubation services within facility and adviser limitsDEC-DP27-017 · Incubation capacity · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Allocate incubation services within facility and adviser limits.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Applications; needs; workspace capacity; advisers; time requirements; approved criteria.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — incubation capacity · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Find unfunded enterprise-support commitmentsDEC-DP27-018 · Programme finance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify unfunded enterprise-support commitments.

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. Budget; approved assistance; commitments; disbursements; eligible expenditure; currency.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — programme finance · 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Resolve inconsistent enterprise identities before reportingDEC-DP27-019 · Enterprise registry · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Resolve inconsistent enterprise identities before reporting.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Registration ID; source names; location; owner consent; duplicates; verification.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — enterprise registry · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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. Select enterprise-support approaches for continuation or redesignDEC-DP27-020 · Programme effectiveness · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Select enterprise-support approaches for continuation or redesign.

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. Verified outcomes; costs; inclusion; unintended effects; context; evaluation evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Mentoring · 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	Select enterprise-support approaches for continuation or redesign; Verified outcomes and costs 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. Enterprise development adviser and finance/monitoring reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

National Enterprise Development Authority — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Cost of production budgeting — Institution publication. Generic landing page; the intended budgeting guide is not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
OECD evaluation criteria — Institution publication. Understanding the six criteria: definitions and elements for analysis. 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
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?

National Enterprise Development Authority

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?