Farmers

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. Choose crops using transparent enterprise gross margins 2. Plan irrigation needs for the proposed crop season 3. Find handling stages causing verified crop losses 4. Adjust planned planting against crop calendar and advice 5. Compare suitable crop and variety alternatives 6. Plan affordable crop inputs with actual cost assumptions 7. Find seasonal cash shortages before commitments 8. Seek reviewed nutrient advice using valid soil tests 9. Decide when to request specialist pest or disease diagnosis 10. Check proposed treatments against current authorized guidance 11. Select seed lots with verified suitability and quality evidence 12. Schedule available labour around critical crop operations 13. Compare hiring and ownership of farm machinery 14. Compare buyer offers after costs and quality differences 15. Find feasible buyers for available produce 16. Compare feasible water-saving and crop-adaptation options 17. Compare immediate sale with safe storage alternatives 18. Appraise proposed farm improvements under realistic scenarios 19. Prepare complete evidence for relevant farmer-support schemes 20. Find missing records needed for reliable farm analysis

1. Choose crops using transparent enterprise gross marginsDEC-DP33-001 · Farm profitability · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Choose crops using transparent enterprise gross margins.

Verified published formula · Enterprise gross margin

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

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

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

Other required evidence. Saleable output; realized price; variable costs; hectares; crop; season.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — farm profitability · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Saleable output	3,800	kg
Realized price	112	LKR/kg
Variable costs	295,000	LKR
Matching crop area	1	ha
Enterprise gross margin	130,600	LKR
Gross margin per hectare	130,600	LKR/ha
Variable-cost break-even price	77.632	LKR/kg

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

Proposed checking role. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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

FAO enterprise and activity budgeting — Institution publication. Section4 enterprise and activity budgeting. Published enterprise gross margin/revenue and variable-cost distinction.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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. Plan irrigation needs for the proposed crop seasonDEC-DP33-002 · Irrigation planning · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Plan irrigation needs for the proposed crop season.

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 stages; evapotranspiration; rainfall; soil storage; percolation; field efficiency.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — irrigation planning · 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 with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Find handling stages causing verified crop lossesDEC-DP33-003 · Harvest losses · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify handling stages causing verified crop losses.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Batch input; saleable output; moisture; rejected quantity; transfers; stage.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — harvest losses · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Batch input on stated moisture basis	1,200	kg
Saleable output	970	kg
Usable by-product	85	kg
Closing stock	45	kg
Documented transfers out	20	kg
Unaccounted physical share	6.667	%
Unaccounted mass	80	kg

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

Proposed checking role. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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

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

Institution and data context

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Adjust planned planting against crop calendar and adviceDEC-DP33-004 · Planting dates · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Adjust planned planting against crop calendar and advice.

Validation required

Method. Observed date minus planned date in calendar days. Missing actual dates are pending, not zero delay. Approved working-day rules require a defined calendar.

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 milestone/sowing date; Observed completion/sowing date

Other required evidence. Approved crop calendar; planned date; actual date; weather advisory; constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — planting dates · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Planned milestone/sowing date	2025-06-01
Observed completion/sowing date	2025-06-09
Calendar date difference	8	days

Proposed checking role. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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 suitable crop and variety alternativesDEC-DP33-005 · Crop choice · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare suitable crop and variety alternatives.

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. Soil; Soil evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; water; water evidence reference; variety requirements; variety requirements evidence reference; market demand; market demand evidence reference; farm constraints; farm constraints evidence reference

Other required evidence. Soil; rainfall; water; variety requirements; market demand; farm constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — crop choice · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Soil	Missing
Soil evidence reference
rainfall	Documented
rainfall evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
water	Documented
water evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
variety requirements	Documented
variety requirements evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
market demand	Documented
market demand evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
farm constraints	Documented
farm constraints 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 with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Plan affordable crop inputs with actual cost assumptionsDEC-DP33-006 · Input budgeting · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Plan affordable crop inputs with actual cost assumptions.

Validation required

Method. Sum non-overlapping costs, then divide by the matching verified quantity for the same currency and accounting period.

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Labour cost [LKR]; Material/input cost [LKR]; Other non-overlapping cost [LKR]; Verified matching hectares [ha]

Other required evidence. Input quantities; prices; labour; machinery; cultivated hectares; cash availability.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — input budgeting · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Labour cost	180,000	LKR
Material/input cost	255,000	LKR
Other non-overlapping cost	62,000	LKR
Verified matching hectares	5.4	ha
Cost per matching unit	92,037.037	LKR/ha
Total cost	497,000	LKR

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

Proposed checking role. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

After the action. Actual comparable unit cost and service/output quality.

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

Institution and data context

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Find seasonal cash shortages before commitmentsDEC-DP33-007 · Cash needs · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify seasonal cash shortages before commitments.

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. Dated farm receipts; input payments; household commitments; debt; opening cash.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — cash needs · 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 with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Seek reviewed nutrient advice using valid soil testsDEC-DP33-008 · Soil advice · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Seek reviewed nutrient advice using valid soil tests.

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 [mg/kg]; Example lower comparison bound [mg/kg]; Example upper comparison bound [mg/kg]; 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. Soil sample; laboratory results; crop; previous inputs; current recommendation.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — soil advice · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parameter and applicable use	Available phosphorus by stated method
Measured result	12	mg/kg
Example lower comparison bound	15	mg/kg
Example upper comparison bound	30	mg/kg
Original and limit unit	mg/kg
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	12	mg/kg

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. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Decide when to request specialist pest or disease diagnosisDEC-DP33-009 · Pest diagnosis · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Decide when to request specialist pest or disease diagnosis.

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. Observed symptoms; Observed symptoms evidence reference; crop stage; crop stage evidence reference; spread; spread evidence reference; photographs; photographs evidence reference; advisory criteria; advisory criteria evidence reference; date; date evidence reference

Other required evidence. Observed symptoms; crop stage; spread; photographs; advisory criteria; date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — pest diagnosis · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Observed symptoms	Missing
Observed symptoms evidence reference
crop stage	Documented
crop stage evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
spread	Documented
spread evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
photographs	Documented
photographs evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
advisory criteria	Documented
advisory criteria evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
date	Documented
date 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 with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Check proposed treatments against current authorized guidanceDEC-DP33-010 · Safe crop protection · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Check proposed treatments against current authorized guidance.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Product; Product evidence reference; crop; crop evidence reference; pest; pest evidence reference; registration; registration evidence reference; label version; label version evidence reference; restrictions; restrictions evidence reference; adviser recommendation; adviser recommendation evidence reference

Other required evidence. Product; crop; pest; registration; label version; restrictions; adviser recommendation.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — safe crop protection · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Product	Missing
Product evidence reference
crop	Documented
crop evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
pest	Documented
pest evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
registration	Documented
registration evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
label version	Documented
label version evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
restrictions	Documented
restrictions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
adviser recommendation	Documented
adviser recommendation 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 with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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

Sri Lanka Registrar of Pesticides — Government publication. Current registration lists, restrictions and label guidance. Registration and label evidence; no treatment recommendation or automatic permission.
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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Select seed lots with verified suitability and quality evidenceDEC-DP33-011 · Seed purchase · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select seed lots with verified suitability and quality evidence.

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. Variety; Variety evidence reference; lot ID; lot ID evidence reference; certification; certification evidence reference; germination; germination evidence reference; expiry; expiry evidence reference; required quantity; required quantity evidence reference

Other required evidence. Variety; lot ID; certification; germination; expiry; required quantity.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — seed purchase · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Variety	Missing
Variety evidence reference
lot ID	Documented
lot ID evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
certification	Documented
certification evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
germination	Documented
germination evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
expiry	Documented
expiry evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
required quantity	Documented
required quantity 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 with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Schedule available labour around critical crop operationsDEC-DP33-012 · Labour planning · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Schedule available labour around critical crop operations.

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. Tasks; dates; labour days; available workers; weather windows; dependencies.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — labour planning · 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 with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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 hiring and ownership of farm machineryDEC-DP33-013 · Machinery choice · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare hiring and ownership of farm machinery.

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. Hire prices; purchase cost; maintenance; utilization; finance; operation needs.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — machinery choice · 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 with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Compare buyer offers after costs and quality differencesDEC-DP33-014 · Selling decisions · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare buyer offers after costs and quality differences.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Product grade; offer price; transport; commissions; payment terms; losses.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — selling decisions · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Comparable purchase quotation	180	LKR/kg
Comparable selling quotation	222	LKR/kg
Non-overlapping transfer costs	20	LKR/kg
Expected saleable mass loss	5	%
Product, grade and price basis	Sample same product and grade
Quoted net return per purchased kg	10.9	LKR/kg
Unadjusted quoted spread	42	LKR/kg

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

Proposed checking role. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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

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

Institution and data context

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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

15. Find feasible buyers for available produceDEC-DP33-015 · Buyer matching · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify feasible buyers for available produce.

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. Available crop; grade; quantity; harvest date; buyer demand; location.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — buyer matching · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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

16. Compare feasible water-saving and crop-adaptation optionsDEC-DP33-016 · Drought adaptation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare feasible water-saving and crop-adaptation options.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Farm exposure; water supply; crop alternatives; costs; technical advice; risks.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Drip irrigation scenario · 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 feasible water-saving and crop-adaptation options; Farm exposure and water supply 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 with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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 immediate sale with safe storage alternativesDEC-DP33-017 · Storage decisions · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare immediate sale with safe storage alternatives.

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. Storage life; costs; losses; current price; price scenarios; cash needs.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Drip irrigation scenario · 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 immediate sale with safe storage alternatives; Storage life and costs evidence needed
Resource needs and adverse effects	Sample water, labour, access and safeguard trade-offs
Budget remaining after option	300,000	LKR

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

Proposed checking role. Farmer with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Appraise proposed farm improvements under realistic scenariosDEC-DP33-018 · Farm investment · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Appraise proposed farm improvements under realistic scenarios.

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

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.

Other required evidence. Capital cost; recurring cost; benefits; lifespan; financing; discount rate.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — farm investment · 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 with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Prepare complete evidence for relevant farmer-support schemesDEC-DP33-019 · Support applications · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prepare complete evidence for relevant farmer-support schemes.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Scheme criteria; Scheme criteria evidence reference; farm records; farm records evidence reference; identity consent; identity consent evidence reference; prior support; prior support evidence reference; required documents; required documents evidence reference

Other required evidence. Scheme criteria; farm records; identity consent; prior support; required documents.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — support applications · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Scheme criteria	Missing
Scheme criteria evidence reference
farm records	Documented
farm records evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
identity consent	Documented
identity consent evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
prior support	Documented
prior support evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
required documents	Documented
required documents 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 with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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. Find missing records needed for reliable farm analysisDEC-DP33-020 · Farm recordkeeping · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Identify missing records needed for reliable farm analysis.

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; Plot evidence reference; crop; crop evidence reference; dates; dates evidence reference; units; units evidence reference; purchases; purchases evidence reference; harvest; harvest evidence reference; sales; sales evidence reference; source documents; source documents evidence reference

Other required evidence. Plot; crop; dates; units; purchases; harvest; sales; source documents.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — farm recordkeeping · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Plot	Missing
Plot evidence reference
crop	Documented
crop evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
dates	Documented
dates evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
units	Documented
units evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
purchases	Documented
purchases evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
harvest	Documented
harvest evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
sales	Documented
sales evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
source documents	Documented
source documents 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 with qualified agriculture/water/finance adviser for the decision.

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

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.
HARTI weekly commodity bulletins — 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.

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

Crop categories · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 816a25e50e472c74

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
category Id	Confirm if needed	No
description	Confirm if needed	No

Crop sub categories · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 9ec496a5e0c6aadf

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
description	Confirm if needed	No
sub Category Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Category DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Category DTO / category Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Category DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No

Crops · Crop Production

Existing form reference: f6a51a2d7e2080bc

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Id	Confirm if needed	No
description	Confirm if needed	No
crop Type	Confirm if needed	No
scientific Name	Confirm if needed	No
optimum Temperature	Confirm if needed	No
nursery Establishment Period	Confirm if needed	No
harvesting	Confirm if needed	No
family	Confirm if needed	No
is Multi Pick	Confirm if needed	No
micro Green Available	Confirm if needed	No
crop Sub Category DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Sub Category DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No
crop Sub Category DTO / sub Category Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Sub Category DTO / crop Category DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Sub Category DTO / crop Category DTO / category Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop Sub Category DTO / crop Category DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No
soil Type DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
soil Type DTO / soil Type Code	Confirm if needed	No
soil Type DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No
soil Type DTO / created Date	Confirm if needed	No
soil Type DTO / modified Date	Confirm if needed	No
is Plantation Crop	Confirm if needed	No
annual Rainfall	Confirm if needed	No
altitude	Confirm if needed	No
suitable Cultivation Areas	Confirm if needed	No
soil Characteristics	Confirm if needed	No
soil Ph Range	Confirm if needed	No
nursery Management	Confirm if needed	No
land Preparation	Confirm if needed	No
seeding Transplanting Planting	Confirm if needed	No
planting Time	Confirm if needed	No
seed Or Cutting Requirement	Confirm if needed	No
spacing	Confirm if needed	No

Crop varieties · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 4407b75d4bb7f035

Field	Unit	Required
id	Confirm if needed	No
variety Id	Confirm if needed	No
variety Name	Confirm if needed	No
variety Description	Confirm if needed	No
pericarp Color / id	Confirm if needed	No
pericarp Color / code	Confirm if needed	No
pericarp Color / description	Confirm if needed	No
grain Size	Confirm if needed	No
average Yield	Confirm if needed	No
maturity Time	Confirm if needed	No
is Imported	Confirm if needed	No
is Multi Pick	Confirm if needed	No
grain Color	Confirm if needed	No
bearing Period In Days	Confirm if needed	No
scientific Name	Confirm if needed	No
released Year	Confirm if needed	No
duration Between Two Picks	Confirm if needed	No
edible Part Shape	Confirm if needed	No
seed Requirement	Confirm if needed	No
spacing	Confirm if needed	No
soil Problems	Confirm if needed	No
number Of Pics	Confirm if needed	No
farmer Yield	Confirm if needed	No
research Yield	Confirm if needed	No
grain Quality	Confirm if needed	No
croplook Variety Id	Confirm if needed	No
variety Type	Confirm if needed	No
pollination Type	Confirm if needed	No
grain Type / id	Confirm if needed	No
grain Type / code	Confirm if needed	No
grain Type / description	Confirm if needed	No
age Type	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / scientific Name	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / is Multi Pick	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Sub Category DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Sub Category DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Sub Category DTO / sub Category Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Sub Category DTO / crop Category DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Sub Category DTO / crop Category DTO / category Id	Confirm if needed	No
crop DTO / crop Sub Category DTO / crop Category DTO / description	Confirm if needed	No
harti Items DTO / id	Confirm if needed	No
harti Items DTO / item Num	Confirm if needed	No
harti Items DTO / item Name	Confirm if needed	No
harti Items DTO / group Name	Confirm if needed	No
file Resource DTOList	Confirm if needed	No
discontinued	Confirm if needed	No
discontinued Date	Confirm if needed	No
research Yield Dry Weight	Confirm if needed	No
average Yield Dry Weight	Confirm if needed	No
paddy Variety Type	Confirm if needed	No
grain Category / id	Confirm if needed	No
grain Category / code	Confirm if needed	No
grain Category / description	Confirm if needed	No
farmer Selection	Confirm if needed	No
plant Growth	Confirm if needed	No
age Group / id	Confirm if needed	No
age Group / code	Confirm if needed	No
age Group / description	Confirm if needed	No
age Group / crop / id	Confirm if needed	No
age Group / crop / description	Confirm if needed	No
aromatic	Confirm if needed	No
low Gi	Confirm if needed	No
sticky	Confirm if needed	No
soft Cook Rice	Confirm if needed	No
general Cultivation	Confirm if needed	No
wz Only	Confirm if needed	No
salinity Areas	Confirm if needed	No
iron Toxicity	Confirm if needed	No
drought Tolerant	Confirm if needed	No
heat Tolerant	Confirm if needed	No
submergence Tolerant	Confirm if needed	No
cold Tolerant	Confirm if needed	No
acid Sulfate	Confirm if needed	No
upland	Confirm if needed	No
seed Testa Color	Confirm if needed	No
harvest In Many Picks	Confirm if needed	No
pod Fruit Bulb Size Unit	Confirm if needed	No
pod Fruit Bulb Color	Confirm if needed	No
pest Disease Resistance	Confirm if needed	No
number Of Seed For Pod	Confirm if needed	No
number Of Bulbs	Confirm if needed	No
pod Fruit Bulb Size	Confirm if needed	No
chilli Pungency Level	Confirm if needed	No
special Characteristics	Confirm if needed	No
harvest To Seed	Confirm if needed	No
multi Pick Per Variety DTOList	Confirm if needed	No
grain Category	Confirm if needed	No
age Group	Confirm if needed	No
pericarp Color	Confirm if needed	No
grain Type	Confirm if needed	No
pod Fruit Bulb Color / id	Confirm if needed	No
pod Fruit Bulb Color / code	Confirm if needed	No
pod Fruit Bulb Color / description	Confirm if needed	No
harti Items DTO	Confirm if needed	No

Export crops · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 31afd4eae072f89f

Field	Unit	Required

Paddy, OFC & VEG — 2025/26 Maha - November · Crop Production

Existing form reference: aa35b2a397b5c03d

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

Roots & Tuber, Leafy Vege — 2025/26 Maha - November · Crop Production

Existing form reference: ddb475db65cb5155

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

Fruit — 2025/26 Maha - November · Crop Production

Existing form reference: a58a0587ce2979e4

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

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

Existing form reference: 63278eb926593608

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

Roots & Tuber, Leafy Vege — 2026 Yala - March · Crop Production

Existing form reference: f0b5ebbaf3b23649

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

Fruit — 2026 Yala - March · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 198a6e47d9d0d6c7

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

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

Roots & Tuber, Leafy Vege — 2026 Yala - April · Crop Production

Existing form reference: c73f38e8793641c8

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

Fruit — 2026 Yala - April · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 718ca532ca18dd77

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 Farmers See the presentation example

Farmers Documents and images prototype screen — Farmers. 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 Farmers See the presentation example

Farmers Data structure management prototype screen — Farmers. 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 Farmers See the presentation example

Farmers Users and access prototype screen — Farmers. 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.

Farmers

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?