Industrial Development Board

1. Match eligible industrial demand to available developed plotsDEC-DP28-001 · Estate plots · Suggested priority: High

Match eligible industrial demand to available developed plots.

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. Plot utility/use specification; Applicant utility/use needs; Available uncommitted quantity [m²]; Required quantity [m²]; Supply available from; Supply available until; Delivery window begins; Delivery window ends; Required quality, rights and conditions

Other required evidence. Plot ID; usable area; utilities; restrictions; applicant needs; lease status.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — estate plots · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Plot utility/use specification	Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain
Applicant utility/use needs	Cleaned dry pepper / whole grain
Available uncommitted quantity	1,200	m²
Required quantity	1,500	m²
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	m²

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

Proposed checking role. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service 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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

2. Choose what to handle first: missing estate utilities and access infrastructureDEC-DP28-002 · Infrastructure readiness · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize missing estate utilities and access infrastructure.

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 [m³/day]; Rated capacity for that period [m³/day]; Unavailable or restricted capacity [m³/day]

Other required evidence. Estate; power; water; roads; drainage; capacity; inspection; tenant needs.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — infrastructure readiness · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Demand in the selected period	150	m³/day
Rated capacity for that period	180	m³/day
Unavailable or restricted capacity	45	m³/day
Usable capacity minus demand	-15	m³/day
Usable capacity	135	m³/day

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. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service 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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

3. Check enterprise outcomes following technical assistanceDEC-DP28-003 · Support outcomes · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Verify enterprise outcomes following technical 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. Support cohort; training; technical adoption; production outcomes; follow-up dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — support 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. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service 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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

4. Resolve outstanding tenant-support requestsDEC-DP28-004 · Estate requests · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Resolve outstanding tenant-support requests.

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. Request ID; estate; issue; receipt; due date; priority; assigned owner.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — estate requests · 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. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service 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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

5. Compare industrial modernization alternativesDEC-DP28-005 · Technology upgrades · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare industrial modernization alternatives.

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. Current process; equipment options; capital cost; output; energy; maintenance; demand.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — technology upgrades · 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. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service 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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

6. Find facilities with inefficient material and energy useDEC-DP28-006 · Resource productivity · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify facilities with inefficient material and energy use.

Validation required

Method. Energy/output; water/output; and 100 × output/material input. Separate denominators and units; do not sum these efficiencies.

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. Saleable product [kg]; Electric energy [kWh]; Process water [m³]; Raw material input [kg]

Other required evidence. Saleable output; raw material; energy kWh; water cubic metres; process period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — resource productivity · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Saleable product	4,500	kg
Electric energy	3,400	kWh
Process water	80	m³
Raw material input	5,300	kg
Energy per product	0.756	kWh/kg
Water per product	0.018	m³/kg
Saleable mass conversion	84.906	%

Proposed checking role. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer.

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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

7. Target technical support to recurring quality failuresDEC-DP28-007 · Product quality · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Target technical support to recurring quality failures.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Parameter and applicable use; Measured result [mm]; Example lower comparison bound [mm]; Example upper comparison bound [mm]; 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. Product lot; test results; specification; defect reason; process; corrective history.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — product quality · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parameter and applicable use	Product dimension under specification
Measured result	10.4	mm
Example lower comparison bound	9.8	mm
Example upper comparison bound	10.2	mm
Original and limit unit	mm
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	10.4	mm

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. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

8. Schedule technical training around verified skill needsDEC-DP28-008 · Industrial training · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Schedule technical training around verified skill needs.

Validation required

Method. Check start/end order, operating window, effort, predecessor completion and overlapping bookings for the same resource. A conflict is flagged; no optimal schedule is invented.

Next step. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Assign a feasible timetable, redistribute resources, or escalate the blocked dependency.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Required resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites

Other required evidence. Enterprise needs; course topics; trainer capacity; facilities; participant availability.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — industrial training · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Required resource	Watershed field team
Task start	2025-06-01
Task end	2025-06-04
Earliest permitted start	2025-05-28
Latest permitted finish	2025-06-08
Required resource effort	16	hours
Available resource effort	24	hours
Predecessor task reference	None
Mandatory permits and prerequisites	Met
Planned duration	3	days
Resource hours remaining	8	hours

Proposed checking role. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

9. Review proposed manufacturing projects against constraintsDEC-DP28-009 · New enterprise appraisal · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review proposed manufacturing projects against constraints.

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. Business plan; Business plan evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; utilities; utilities evidence reference; permits; permits evidence reference; costs; costs evidence reference; market evidence; market evidence evidence reference; eligibility; eligibility evidence reference

Other required evidence. Business plan; location; utilities; permits; costs; market evidence; eligibility.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — new enterprise appraisal · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Business plan	Missing
Business plan evidence reference
location	Documented
location evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
utilities	Documented
utilities evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
permits	Documented
permits evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
costs	Documented
costs evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
market evidence	Documented
market evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
eligibility	Documented
eligibility 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. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service 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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

10. Choose what to handle first: shared infrastructure maintenanceDEC-DP28-010 · Estate maintenance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize shared infrastructure maintenance.

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. Authorize feasible repair through the proper work process, inspect further, or restrict unsafe use.

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. Asset condition; service criticality; failures; inspection dates; repair alternatives; cost.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — estate maintenance · 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. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer.

After the action. Verified defect closure, service availability and repeat failures.

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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

11. Follow up estate rent and lease-account discrepanciesDEC-DP28-011 · Rent reconciliation · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Follow up estate rent and lease-account discrepancies.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Lease; assessed rent; receipts; adjustments; arrears; due dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — rent reconciliation · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

12. Refer industrial environmental concerns to competent agenciesDEC-DP28-012 · Pollution referrals · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer industrial environmental concerns to competent agencies.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. Select a feasible control, escalate beyond authority, or seek technical inspection.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Facility; Facility evidence reference; observed discharge; observed discharge evidence reference; permits; permits evidence reference; inspection; inspection evidence reference; exposed receptors; exposed receptors evidence reference; authority; authority evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Facility; observed discharge; permits; inspection; exposed receptors; authority.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — pollution referrals · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Facility	Missing
Facility evidence reference
observed discharge	Documented
observed discharge evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
permits	Documented
permits evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
inspection	Documented
inspection evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
exposed receptors	Documented
exposed receptors evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
authority	Documented
authority evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Documented unresolved critical condition	Unknown
Evidence observation date	2025-06-30
Existing control and its evidence	Sample documented control
Competent recipient	Responsible specialist / duty authority
Evidence gaps	1	items

Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count.

Proposed checking role. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

13. Compare demand for shared industrial processing facilitiesDEC-DP28-013 · Common facilities · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare demand for shared industrial processing facilities.

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

Other required evidence. Enterprise demand; usable capacity; access; costs; operating constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — common facilities · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Demand in the selected period	150	facility hours
Rated capacity for that period	180	facility hours
Unavailable or restricted capacity	45	facility hours
Usable capacity minus demand	-15	facility hours
Usable capacity	135	facility 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. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service 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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

14. Select feasible product-development support projectsDEC-DP28-014 · Product development · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select feasible product-development support projects.

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. Prototype evidence; market demand; technical readiness; testing costs; risks.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Energy audit · 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 feasible product-development support projects; Prototype evidence 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. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service 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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

15. Reduce delays in technical testing and consultancyDEC-DP28-015 · Testing services · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Reduce delays in technical testing and consultancy.

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. Request; test type; receipt; due date; equipment; specialist availability.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — testing services · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Received or defect observed	2025-04-01
Recorded due date	2025-06-01
Assessment date	2025-06-30
Case/work closed	No
Documented critical unresolved condition	Unknown
Responsible office or maintainer	Proposed responsible office
Actual closure date when closed
Open days past due	29	days
Calendar age	90	days

Example due dates are not legal service standards. Do not alter statutory deadlines by silently subtracting pauses, or infer severity from age alone.

Proposed checking role. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service 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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

16. Match industrial inputs by-products and buyer demandDEC-DP28-016 · Supply-chain linkages · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Match industrial inputs by-products and 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. Material specification; quality; quantity; availability; permitted use; location.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — supply-chain 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. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service 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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

17. Choose what to handle first: documented industrial safety concerns for specialist reviewDEC-DP28-017 · Worker safety · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize documented industrial safety concerns for specialist review.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. Select a feasible control, escalate beyond authority, or seek technical inspection.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Hazards; Hazards evidence reference; exposure; exposure evidence reference; controls; controls evidence reference; incidents; incidents evidence reference; inspections; inspections evidence reference; applicable requirements; applicable requirements evidence reference; Documented unresolved critical condition; Evidence observation date; Existing control and its evidence; Competent recipient

Other required evidence. Hazards; exposure; controls; incidents; inspections; applicable requirements.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — worker safety · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Hazards	Missing
Hazards evidence reference
exposure	Documented
exposure evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
controls	Documented
controls evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
incidents	Documented
incidents evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
inspections	Documented
inspections evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
applicable requirements	Documented
applicable requirements evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Documented unresolved critical condition	Unknown
Evidence observation date	2025-06-30
Existing control and its evidence	Sample documented control
Competent recipient	Responsible specialist / duty authority
Evidence gaps	1	items

Show the hazard, exposure and verified controls separately. No generic score, probability, diagnosis, site clearance or official warning is derived from a count.

Proposed checking role. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer.

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

ILO controlling occupational risks — Institution publication. Controlling risks; hierarchy of controls. Evidence-led control review; no universal numeric risk score or clearance.
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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

18. Compare locations for new industrial-estate capacityDEC-DP28-018 · Estate expansion · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare locations for new industrial-estate capacity.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Land constraints; Land constraints evidence reference; utilities; utilities evidence reference; transport; transport evidence reference; demand; demand evidence reference; costs; costs evidence reference; environmental approvals; environmental approvals evidence reference

Other required evidence. Land constraints; utilities; transport; demand; costs; environmental approvals.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — estate expansion · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Land constraints	Missing
Land constraints evidence reference
utilities	Documented
utilities evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
transport	Documented
transport evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
demand	Documented
demand evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
costs	Documented
costs evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
environmental approvals	Documented
environmental 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. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

19. Correct outdated plot and facility informationDEC-DP28-019 · Estate catalogue · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Correct outdated plot and facility information.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. 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. Plot ID; Plot ID evidence reference; geometry; geometry evidence reference; tenant status; tenant status evidence reference; utilities; utilities evidence reference; last verification; last verification evidence reference; custodian; custodian evidence reference

Other required evidence. Plot ID; geometry; tenant status; utilities; last verification; custodian.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — estate catalogue · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Plot ID	Missing
Plot ID evidence reference
geometry	Documented
geometry evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
tenant status	Documented
tenant status evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
utilities	Documented
utilities evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
last verification	Documented
last verification evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
custodian	Documented
custodian 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. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

20. Compare whether technical support improved enterprise performanceDEC-DP28-020 · Industrial outcomes · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Evaluate whether technical support improved enterprise performance.

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 Saleable production per resource before [kg/kWh]; Treatment Saleable production per resource after [kg/kWh]; Comparison Saleable production per resource before [kg/kWh]; Comparison Saleable production per resource after [kg/kWh]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Baseline productivity; follow-up; support type; comparison firms; external factors.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — industrial outcomes · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Saleable production per resource before	42	kg/kWh
Treatment Saleable production per resource after	59	kg/kWh
Comparison Saleable production per resource before	39	kg/kWh
Comparison Saleable production per resource after	46	kg/kWh
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Saleable production per resource /example matching definition1
Difference in changes	10	kg/kWh

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

Proposed checking role. Industrial engineer and enterprise/estate service 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

IDB technical services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
IDB industrial estates — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

Field	Unit	Required
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?

Industrial 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?