Farmer Organizations

Tell us what to change or add.

Your name (optional)Your roleReview date

Continue a saved review

1. Check a decision

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

2. Try the inputs

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

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

3. Check each decision

1. Coordinate support for underused member farmland 2. Review potentially overlapping assistance to members 3. Prepare evidence-based seasonal water requests 4. Escalate overdue collective farming requests 5. Propose workable water rotations for member areas 6. Check unequal delivery against agreed allocations 7. Plan joint input purchases against verified member demand 8. Match aggregated produce with verified buyer requirements 9. Allocate shared machinery without conflicting reservations 10. Choose what to handle first: common tank and canal maintenance requests 11. Compare and correct differences in organization receipts expenses and balances 12. Resolve inconsistent or duplicate member records 13. Address missing meetings audits and required disclosures 14. Target member training to verified skill gaps 15. Compare collective responses to forecast water shortages 16. Coordinate verification of shared crop-damage reports 17. Compare collective storage and handling investments 18. Resolve member objections to collective plans 19. Follow up members missing agreed information updates 20. Compare benefits and costs of group farming services

1. Coordinate support for underused member farmlandDEC-DP32-001 · Land use · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Coordinate support for underused member farmland.

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

Other required evidence. Member plots; usable hectares; cultivated hectares; season; inactivity reason.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — land use · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

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

2. Review potentially overlapping assistance to membersDEC-DP32-002 · Support fairness · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review potentially overlapping assistance to members.

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. Member ID; programme; purpose; support quantity; period; entitlement.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — support fairness · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Permitted recipient/service reference	Laggala Pallegama — support fairness
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. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Prepare evidence-based seasonal water requestsDEC-DP32-003 · Irrigation requests · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prepare evidence-based seasonal water requests.

Verified published component · Crop evapotranspiration ETc component

Method. ETc = ETo × Kc. Net = max(0, ETc + percolation + desired storage increase − rainfall after runoff − capillary contribution). Gross = net × hectares ×10 / application efficiency.

Next step. Review evidence. Propose crop demand, scheduling or allocation alternatives for authorized review.

Inputs, example and sources

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56 Crop Evapotranspiration
Institution publication · Chapter 5, Crop coefficient approach, equation 56

This verifies the ETc component only. Local water-balance allowances, coefficients and operating decisions still need confirmation.

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

Analysis inputs. Irrigated crop area [ha]; Reference evapotranspiration [mm/day]; Crop coefficient [ratio]; Rainfall reaching the field after runoff [mm/day]; Deep percolation and paddy allowance [mm/day]; Capillary contribution [mm/day]; Desired change in stored soil water [mm/day]; Field application efficiency [fraction]

Other required evidence. Crop areas; growth stages; rainfall; soil water; percolation; efficiency.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — irrigation requests · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Irrigated crop area	85	ha
Reference evapotranspiration	4.5	mm/day
Crop coefficient	1.1	ratio
Rainfall reaching the field after runoff	1.6	mm/day
Deep percolation and paddy allowance	2	mm/day
Capillary contribution	0	mm/day
Desired change in stored soil water	0	mm/day
Field application efficiency	0.68	fraction
Gross daily irrigation requirement	6,687.5	m³/day
Net field requirement	5.35	mm/day

The full local balance, rooting depth, stress, crop stage and operating constraints still matter. The paddy allowance is explicit and must be zero where inapplicable. This is not an authorized reservoir release.

Proposed checking role. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

After the action. Delivered water, crop stress, unmet demand and downstream conditions.

FAO 56: crop evapotranspiration — Institution publication. FAO 56 Chapter 5 equation 56; ETc = Kc × ETo. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO56 root-zone water balance — Institution publication. Chapter8 equation85 and ETc = Kc ETo. Daily water balance components; local coefficients and operating assumptions still need review.
FAO Irrigation Water Management Training Manual 3 — Institution publication. Chapter 4.4 Irrigation water need of rice; steps 1 to 8. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Escalate overdue collective farming requestsDEC-DP32-004 · Service coordination · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Escalate overdue collective farming 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; institution; receipt; due date; response; responsible coordinator.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — service coordination · 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. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Propose workable water rotations for member areasDEC-DP32-005 · Water rotations · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Propose workable water rotations for member areas.

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. Approved allocation; outlet capacity; crop stage; delivery windows; member agreement.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — water rotations · 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. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Check unequal delivery against agreed allocationsDEC-DP32-006 · Tail-end equity · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate unequal delivery against agreed allocations.

Validation required

Method. Observed value minus Planned value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Planned value when the earlier value is positive.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate a material deviation, assign correction, or propose a target revision.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Planned value [m³]; Observed value [m³]

Other required evidence. Outlet; location; agreed water; actual delivery; hectares; season.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — tail-end equity · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Planned value	100	m³
Observed value	90	m³
Difference	-10	m³
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

After the action. Subsequent variance with original and revised targets retained.

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

Institution and data context

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Plan joint input purchases against verified member demandDEC-DP32-007 · Collective inputs · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Plan joint input purchases against verified member demand.

Validation required

Method. Usable = physical−quarantined−expired (non-overlapping groups). Available = usable−commitments. Additional gap = max(0, new demand−available).

Next step. Review replenishment gap. Reorder approved quantities, redistribute stock, or quarantine affected lots.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Physical stock [kg input]; Quarantined stock [kg input]; Expired stock [kg input]; Committed usable stock [kg input]; Additional demand [kg input]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days]

Other required evidence. Input specification; demand; current stock; supplier lead time; commitments; expiry.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — collective inputs · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Physical stock	1,200	kg input
Quarantined stock	100	kg input
Expired stock	50	kg input
Committed usable stock	740	kg input
Additional demand	500	kg input
Supplier lead time	14	days
Remaining shelf life of usable stock	30	days
Uncommitted usable stock	310	kg input
Additional demand gap	190	kg input

Stock must be compatible by item, lot, condition, expiry and delivery window. Do not allocate quarantined/expired stock or silently erase overcommitment.

Proposed checking role. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

After the action. Stockouts, expiry, losses and verified lot traceability.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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 aggregated produce with verified buyer requirementsDEC-DP32-008 · Collective marketing · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Match aggregated produce with verified buyer requirements.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Member supply; product; grade; quantity; harvest window; buyer demand.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — collective marketing · 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. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Allocate shared machinery without conflicting reservationsDEC-DP32-009 · Machinery sharing · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Allocate shared machinery without conflicting reservations.

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.

Other required evidence. Equipment; condition; member bookings; field access; operation duration; crop window.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — machinery sharing · 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. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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: common tank and canal maintenance requestsDEC-DP32-010 · Irrigation upkeep · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize common tank and canal maintenance 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. 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.

Other required evidence. Asset condition; defects; command area; users affected; work options; costs.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — irrigation upkeep · 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. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

11. Compare and correct differences in organization receipts expenses and balancesDEC-DP32-011 · Group finance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Reconcile organization receipts expenses and balances.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Opening balance; member contributions; sales; authorized spending; bank statements.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — group finance · 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. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

12. Resolve inconsistent or duplicate member recordsDEC-DP32-012 · Membership · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Resolve inconsistent or duplicate member records.

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. Member identifier; membership evidence; active status; plot linkage; consent.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — membership · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Address missing meetings audits and required disclosuresDEC-DP32-013 · Governance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Address missing meetings audits and required disclosures.

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. Rules; Rules evidence reference; meeting records; meeting records evidence reference; election evidence; election evidence evidence reference; audit findings; audit findings evidence reference; approved obligations; approved obligations evidence reference

Other required evidence. Rules; meeting records; election evidence; audit findings; approved obligations.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — governance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Rules	Missing
Rules evidence reference
meeting records	Documented
meeting records evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
election evidence	Documented
election evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
audit findings	Documented
audit findings evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
approved obligations	Documented
approved obligations 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. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Target member training to verified skill gapsDEC-DP32-014 · Training · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Target member training to verified skill gaps.

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

Other required evidence. Member needs; prior training; practice adoption; crop; participation.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — training · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Compare collective responses to forecast water shortagesDEC-DP32-015 · Drought plans · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare collective responses to forecast water shortages.

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. Approved forecasts; available water; crop choices; loss estimates; member consultation.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Joint procurement · 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 collective responses to forecast water shortages; Approved forecasts and available water 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. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Coordinate verification of shared crop-damage reportsDEC-DP32-016 · Crop-loss evidence · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Coordinate verification of shared crop-damage reports.

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. Event; Event evidence reference; member plot; member plot evidence reference; damaged hectares; damaged hectares evidence reference; crop stage; crop stage evidence reference; inspection; inspection evidence reference; claim reference; claim reference evidence reference

Other required evidence. Event; member plot; damaged hectares; crop stage; inspection; claim reference.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — crop-loss evidence · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Event	Missing
Event evidence reference
member plot	Documented
member plot evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
damaged hectares	Documented
damaged hectares evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
crop stage	Documented
crop stage evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
inspection	Documented
inspection evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
claim reference	Documented
claim reference 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. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

17. Compare collective storage and handling investmentsDEC-DP32-017 · Storage · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare collective storage and handling investments.

Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

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

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

Other required evidence. Supply volume; losses; storage capacity; cost; market timing; finance.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — storage · 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. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Resolve member objections to collective plansDEC-DP32-018 · Participation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve member objections to collective plans.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Plan version; members; consultation responses; water rights; unresolved issues.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — participation · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

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

Institution and data context

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Follow up members missing agreed information updatesDEC-DP32-019 · Member communication · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Follow up members missing agreed information updates.

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

Other required evidence. Member frame; preferred channel; message; delivery evidence; consent; date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — member communication · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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 benefits and costs of group farming servicesDEC-DP32-020 · Collective outcomes · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Evaluate benefits and costs of group farming services.

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 Member enterprise gross margin before [LKR/ha]; Treatment Member enterprise gross margin after [LKR/ha]; Comparison Member enterprise gross margin before [LKR/ha]; Comparison Member enterprise gross margin after [LKR/ha]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Member baseline; service uptake; margins; follow-up; comparison; market conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — collective outcomes · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Farmer-organization committee and relevant agriculture/water adviser.

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

Department of Agriculture publications and regulations — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Agrarian Development services — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO crop evapotranspiration 56 — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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. Existing data forms for your institution

Check which existing source fields can supply the decision inputs.

Irrigation Offices · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: b5701ed646f0f063

Field	Unit	Required
name	Confirm if needed	No
category	Confirm if needed	No
district_n	Confirm if needed	No

AgroEcological Zones Point · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: cc316b77dd9398f9

Field	Unit	Required
fid_1	Confirm if needed	No
left	Confirm if needed	No
bottom	Confirm if needed	No
right	Confirm if needed	No
top	Confirm if needed	No
x	Confirm if needed	No
y	Confirm if needed	No
fid_2	Confirm if needed	No
join_count	Confirm if needed	No
target_fid	Confirm if needed	No
id	Confirm if needed	No
gridcode	Confirm if needed	No
final_id	Confirm if needed	No
zone	Confirm if needed	No
climatic_z	Confirm if needed	No
agro_eco_z	Confirm if needed	No
agro_eco_r	Confirm if needed	No
terrain	Confirm if needed	No
major_soil	Confirm if needed	No
land_use	Confirm if needed	No
anualrfmm	Confirm if needed	No

ASC Locations · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: a64b0a6754afd4ed

Field	Unit	Required
ASC Number	Confirm if needed	No
ASC Name	Confirm if needed	No
XCOORD	Confirm if needed	No
YCOORD	Confirm if needed	No
Location Code	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No

Agro Ecological Zones · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: 592c3b578787edcd

Field	Unit	Required
Zone	Confirm if needed	No
Climatic_Zone	Confirm if needed	No
Agro_Eco_Zone	Confirm if needed	No
Agro_Eco_R	Confirm if needed	No
Final_ID	Confirm if needed	No
Terrain	Confirm if needed	No
Major_Soil	Confirm if needed	No
Land_Use	Confirm if needed	No
AnualRFmm	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Irrigation Schemes · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: 648a6f28a711dfa9

Field	Unit	Required
System Name	Confirm if needed	No
Systems	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
ID_Systems	Confirm if needed	No
MASL_System	Confirm if needed	No
DSD_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Irrigation Lands · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: e877698582fc591c

Field	Unit	Required
Landuse Type	Confirm if needed	No
Landuse Classification (CropType)	Confirm if needed	No
Creation Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Crops Suitability · Land Suitability

Existing form reference: 54fb1fe96af4f04c

Field	Unit	Required
Province Name	Confirm if needed	No
Province Code	Confirm if needed	No
District Name	Confirm if needed	No
District Code	Confirm if needed	No
DS Division Name	Confirm if needed	No
DS Division Code	Confirm if needed	No
GND Name	Confirm if needed	No
GND Number	Confirm if needed	No
MC UC PS Name	Confirm if needed	No
MC UC PS Code	Confirm if needed	No
Polling Division Name	Confirm if needed	No
Polling Division Code	Confirm if needed	No
id	Confirm if needed	No
Area Hectare	Confirm if needed	No
ASC Name	Confirm if needed	No
Area Sq Km	Confirm if needed	No
Square Km	Confirm if needed	No
Crop Type	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Agrarian development divisions · Administrative & Planning Areas

Existing form reference: fc991a6c3bc249f6

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development Id	Confirm if needed	No
name	Confirm if needed	No
created Date	Confirm if needed	No
modified Date	Confirm if needed	No
city	Confirm if needed	No
latitude	Confirm if needed	No
longitude	Confirm if needed	No

District commissioner divisions · Administrative & Planning Areas

Existing form reference: 57c890c642eab82c

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
district Comm Id	Confirm if needed	No
name	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / do Agrarian Development Id	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / name	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / created Date	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / modified Date	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / city	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / latitude	Confirm if needed	No
do Agrarian Development DTO / longitude	Confirm if needed	No
created Date	Confirm if needed	No
modified Date	Confirm if needed	No
city	Confirm if needed	No
latitude	Confirm if needed	No
longitude	Confirm if needed	No

Asc divisions · Administrative & Planning Areas

Existing form reference: 0bb5ed17e5cdc863

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
asc Id	Confirm if needed	No
name	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / district Comm Id	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / name	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / do Agrarian Development DTO	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / created Date	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / modified Date	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / city	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / latitude	Confirm if needed	No
district Commissioner Level DTO / longitude	Confirm if needed	No
created Date	Confirm if needed	No
modified Date	Confirm if needed	No
city	Confirm if needed	No
latitude	Confirm if needed	No
longitude	Confirm if needed	No

Paddy, OFC & VEG — 2026 Yala - April · Crop Production

Existing form reference: f2c8e1b979a467f1

Field	Unit	Required
Crop	Confirm if needed	No
District	Confirm if needed	No
Measure	Confirm if needed	No
Value	ha	No
Unit	Confirm if needed	No
Season	Confirm if needed	No

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

Existing form reference: 5ef25f806a9c3864

Field	Unit	Required
Commodity	Confirm if needed	No
Market	Confirm if needed	No
Date	Confirm if needed	No
Average price	Confirm if needed	No
Unit	Confirm if needed	No
Source page	Confirm if needed	No

Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-27 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: 65fb55fc4bacaeb4

Field	Unit	Required
Commodity	Confirm if needed	No
Market	Confirm if needed	No
Date	Confirm if needed	No
Average price	Confirm if needed	No
Unit	Confirm if needed	No
Source page	Confirm if needed	No

Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-26 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: 3d27791c0b26d5a7

Field	Unit	Required
Commodity	Confirm if needed	No
Market	Confirm if needed	No
Date	Confirm if needed	No
Average price	Confirm if needed	No
Unit	Confirm if needed	No
Source page	Confirm if needed	No

Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-23 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: 362fe913ea87b4d5

Field	Unit	Required
Commodity	Confirm if needed	No
Market	Confirm if needed	No
Date	Confirm if needed	No
Average price	Confirm if needed	No
Unit	Confirm if needed	No
Source page	Confirm if needed	No

Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-22 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: 4c6b93b0f4ec772d

Field	Unit	Required
Commodity	Confirm if needed	No
Market	Confirm if needed	No
Date	Confirm if needed	No
Average price	Confirm if needed	No
Unit	Confirm if needed	No
Source page	Confirm if needed	No

Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-21 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: edf7d040b8bcbc45

Field	Unit	Required
Commodity	Confirm if needed	No
Market	Confirm if needed	No
Date	Confirm if needed	No
Average price	Confirm if needed	No
Unit	Confirm if needed	No
Source page	Confirm if needed	No

Wholesale food prices — 2026-10-20 · Markets & Value Chains

Existing form reference: f462aa65988abf9a

Field	Unit	Required
Commodity	Confirm if needed	No
Market	Confirm if needed	No
Date	Confirm if needed	No
Average price	Confirm if needed	No
Unit	Confirm if needed	No
Source page	Confirm if needed	No

5. Documents and images

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

Open this screen for Farmer Organizations See the presentation example

Farmer Organizations Documents and images prototype screen — Farmer Organizations. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

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

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

What your institution needs to confirm

Does a separate library for your institution meet your needs?Should new files start as Private for the permitted institution team?Should Public access require a review of the file and sharing permission?What documents and images will you store? Give the file types, usual sizes and need for earlier versions.Which job roles may add files, read Private files and approve Public files?Which files must stay Private? What permission, licence or expiry rule is needed for Public files?What else should change in this library?

6. Data structure management

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

Open this screen for Farmer Organizations See the presentation example

Farmer Organizations Data structure management prototype screen — Farmer Organizations. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

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

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

What your institution needs to confirm

Do the existing main topics and subject areas match your institution’s work?Should definition changes stay Draft until the responsible reviewer checks them?Is it right to reuse the same entity type or field when its meaning is the same?Which main topics, subject areas, entity types or fields should we add or change?Which units, choices, limits, decimal places and missing-value rules must each new field use?Which job roles may edit definitions and review them? Who owns each main information area?When a meaning, unit or calculation changes, what review and version history does your institution need?

7. Users and access

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

Open this screen for Farmer Organizations See the presentation example

Farmer Organizations Users and access prototype screen — Farmer Organizations. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

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

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

What your institution needs to confirm

Do the proposed role names and responsibilities match your institution?Should access be limited to the assigned institution and the agreed dates?Should reading Private files need a separate permission, even for an administrator?Which job roles should view data, add files, review Public requests, edit definitions and manage users?Who should approve new access, set an end date or remove access when someone changes duties?Which user fields, roles or access checks are missing? Give role names rather than passwords or private account details.

9. Anything else we should change?

Which decisions or services are missing?Which forms or fields should change? Give the existing form reference where possible.What should change in the entry, checking, expert, map or report steps?Are the English, Sinhala and Tamil words clear? Give the screen name, current word and your suggested wording.Who should join the next review and what should happen next?

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

Farmer Organizations

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?