Buyers and Traders

1. Match available produce with compatible dated buyer demandDEC-DP36-001 · Supply matching · Suggested priority: High

Match available produce with compatible dated buyer demand.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Product; grade; available quantity; commitments; harvest window; buyer requirements.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — supply 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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

2. Compare procurement offers for equivalent product gradesDEC-DP36-002 · Procurement prices · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare procurement offers for equivalent product grades.

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; unit; market; date; delivery cost.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — procurement prices · 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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Check wholesale and retail spreads after costsDEC-DP36-003 · Trading spreads · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate wholesale and retail spreads after costs.

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. Comparable purchase price; sale price; transport; handling; losses; period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — trading spreads · 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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

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

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

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

4. Choose what to handle first: time-sensitive buyer ordersDEC-DP36-004 · Delivery commitments · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize time-sensitive buyer orders.

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. Order; delivery window; available supply; transport capacity; contractual conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — delivery commitments · 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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

5. Review supplier delivery performance using accepted recordsDEC-DP36-005 · Supplier reliability · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review supplier delivery performance using accepted records.

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 [kg]; Observed value [kg]

Other required evidence. Supplier; promised quantity; delivered quantity; promised date; actual date; quality.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — supplier reliability · Laggala Pallegama

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

Proposed checking role. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

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

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

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

6. Refer received lots failing agreed quality specificationsDEC-DP36-006 · Product acceptance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer received lots failing agreed quality specifications.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Lot; product; test results; buyer specification; sampling method; rejection evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — product acceptance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parameter and applicable use	Received-lot moisture
Measured result	13.5	%
Example lower comparison bound	0	%
Example upper comparison bound	12	%
Original and limit unit	%
Sampling and analytical method/version	Sample laboratory method
Limit source, version and use	Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit
Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match	Yes
Result is below a reporting/detection limit	No
Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis	Sample stated sampling/averaging basis
Measured value	13.5	%

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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

7. Plan replenishment without overcommitting perishable stockDEC-DP36-007 · Stock management · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Plan replenishment without overcommitting perishable stock.

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]; Quarantined stock [kg]; Expired stock [kg]; Committed usable stock [kg]; Additional demand [kg]; Supplier lead time [days]; Remaining shelf life of usable stock [days]

Other required evidence. Usable stock; commitments; expected demand; lead time; shelf life; expiry.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — stock management · Laggala Pallegama

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

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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

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

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

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

8. Find handling and storage stages with verified lossesDEC-DP36-008 · Spoilage reduction · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify handling and storage stages with verified 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. Lot input; saleable output; spoilage; transfers; moisture; stage.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — spoilage reduction · 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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

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

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

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

9. Compare feasible collection and delivery routesDEC-DP36-009 · Transport planning · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare feasible collection and delivery routes.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Origins; buyers; road network; vehicle capacity; delivery windows; costs.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — transport planning · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

10. Compare storage with immediate sale under price uncertaintyDEC-DP36-010 · Storage choice · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare storage with immediate sale under price uncertainty.

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 costs; shelf life; losses; current price; future-price scenarios; cash need.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Immediate sale · 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 storage with immediate sale under price uncertainty; Storage costs and shelf life 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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

11. Find cash gaps from buying and selling schedulesDEC-DP36-011 · Trading cash flow · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify cash gaps from buying and selling schedules.

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 cash; purchase payments; customer receipts; transport; debt; dates.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — trading cash flow · 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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

12. Follow up overdue customer payments within agreed termsDEC-DP36-012 · Buyer payments · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Follow up overdue customer payments within agreed terms.

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. Invoice; due date; amount; receipts; dispute; payment terms.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — buyer payments · 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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

13. Review exposure to a small number of buyersDEC-DP36-013 · Customer dependence · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review exposure to a small number of buyers.

Verified published component · HHI concentration component

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

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

Analysis inputs. Compatible category amount [LKR]

Other required evidence. Buyer sales; total sales; payment history; product; period; concentration.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Kandy wholesale channel · Laggala Pallegama reporting frame

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

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

Proposed checking role. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

US Department of Justice Herfindahl Hirschman Index — Government publication. HHI definition. Published squared-market-share concentration measure. Prototype uses fractional0–1 scale and no competition-policy threshold.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

14. Compare sourcing alternatives where supply is concentratedDEC-DP36-014 · Supplier dependence · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare sourcing alternatives where supply is concentrated.

Verified published component · HHI concentration component

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

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

Analysis inputs. Compatible category amount [kg]

Other required evidence. Supplier volumes; product; total supply; alternatives; risk; delivery reliability.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala farmer group · Laggala Pallegama reporting frame

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

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

Proposed checking role. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

US Department of Justice Herfindahl Hirschman Index — Government publication. HHI definition. Published squared-market-share concentration measure. Prototype uses fractional0–1 scale and no competition-policy threshold.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

15. Adjust procurement exposure after reviewing price volatilityDEC-DP36-015 · Price variability · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Adjust procurement exposure after reviewing price volatility.

Verified published formula · Sample coefficient of variation

Method. Display observations in dated order. Sample SD uses n−1; coefficient of variation = 100 × SD / positive mean.

Next step. Review evidence. Adjust procurement, sales or reserve plans within agreed risk limits.

Inputs, example and sources

National Institute of Standards and Technology United States · Dataplot Coefficient of Variation
Government publication · Description, sample coefficient of variation and ratio-scale restrictions

Use a meaningful zero and positive mean. Local series selection and decision limits still need confirmation.

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

Analysis inputs. Comparable observation [LKR/kg]

Other required evidence. Comparable price series; dates; product grade; market; sample coverage.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — price variability · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Comparable observation	104	LKR/kg
Observed value	104	LKR/kg

Match definitions, methods, grade, location and reference basis. Gaps are not joined. Descriptive variation is not a forecast, causal effect or significant trend.

Proposed checking role. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

After the action. Realized price exposure, losses and forecast error if a model is used.

NIST Coefficient of Variation — Government publication. Definition of sample CV. Published sample SD/mean ratio; positive ratio-scale mean is needed.
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

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

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

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

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

16. Resolve missing provenance for traded lotsDEC-DP36-016 · Traceability · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve missing provenance for traded lots.

Validation required

Method. Follow recorded upstream→downstream links within the same scope and period. Flag missing links; a confirmed defect identifies downstream linked candidates for authorized investigation.

Next step. Investigate linked downstream lot. 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. Upstream lot/source reference; Downstream lot/batch reference; Exact upstream source version; Recorded upstream issue

Other required evidence. Farm source; lot ID; transfers; storage; buyer shipment; certification.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — traceability · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Upstream lot/source reference	EXAMPLE-ROOT
Downstream lot/batch reference	2025-BATCH-1
Exact upstream source version	Sample version1
Recorded upstream issue	Confirmed defect
Broken or affected lineage	1	items

Recorded lineage is not proof of product identity or recall authority. Preserve multi-source batches, transfers and versions; do not clear unlinked lots as safe.

Proposed checking role. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

17. Compare candidate markets against logistics and demandDEC-DP36-017 · Market expansion · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare candidate markets against logistics and demand.

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. Market demand; access; competition evidence; transport; margins; regulatory needs.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Immediate sale · 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 candidate markets against logistics and demand; Market demand and access 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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

18. Check evidence before entering supply agreementsDEC-DP36-018 · Contract readiness · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Check evidence before entering supply agreements.

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. Offer; Offer evidence reference; quantity; quantity evidence reference; grade; grade evidence reference; delivery; delivery evidence reference; payment terms; payment terms evidence reference; authority; authority evidence reference; documented conditions; documented conditions evidence reference

Other required evidence. Offer; quantity; grade; delivery; payment terms; authority; documented conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — contract readiness · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Offer	Missing
Offer evidence reference
quantity	Documented
quantity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
grade	Documented
grade evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
delivery	Documented
delivery evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
payment terms	Documented
payment terms evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
authority	Documented
authority evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
documented conditions	Documented
documented conditions 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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

19. Compare packaging options for losses cost and buyer needsDEC-DP36-019 · Packaging choices · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare packaging options for losses cost and buyer needs.

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. Packaging costs; damage rates; capacity; buyer specification; handling conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Immediate sale · 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 packaging options for losses cost and buyer needs; Packaging costs and damage rates 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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

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

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

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

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

20. Correct inconsistent product grades and quantity unitsDEC-DP36-020 · Product catalogue · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Correct inconsistent product grades and quantity units.

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. Approve a documented mapping, keep it Draft, or create a governed concept after review.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Source product; Source product evidence reference; grade definition; grade definition evidence reference; unit; unit evidence reference; conversion evidence; conversion evidence evidence reference; reference catalogue; reference catalogue evidence reference

Other required evidence. Source product; grade definition; unit; conversion evidence; reference catalogue.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — product catalogue · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Source product	Missing
Source product evidence reference
grade definition	Documented
grade definition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
unit	Documented
unit evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
conversion evidence	Documented
conversion evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
reference catalogue	Documented
reference catalogue 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. Procurement/sales manager and quality/logistics reviewer.

After the action. Unmapped/conflicting concepts and history preserved across revisions.

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

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

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

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

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

Field	Unit	Required
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

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

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

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

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

1. Check a decision

2. Try the inputs

3. Check each decision

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

4. Existing data forms for your institution

5. Documents and images

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

6. Data structure management

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

7. Users and access

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

9. Anything else we should change?

Buyers and Traders

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?