Processors and Exporters

1. Improve conversion of inputs into saleable outputDEC-DP37-001 · Processing yield · Suggested priority: High

Improve conversion of inputs into saleable output.

Validation required

Method. 100 × saleable output / matching input mass. Keep by-products, transfers, moisture change and losses separately identified.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate low productivity, compare practices, or improve the input/output measurements.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Input mass on matching moisture basis [kg]; Saleable output on matching basis [kg]; Usable by-products [kg]

Other required evidence. Input kilograms; saleable output; moisture; by-products; process stage; period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — processing yield · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Input mass on matching moisture basis	1,200	kg
Saleable output on matching basis	970	kg
Usable by-products	85	kg
Saleable mass conversion	80.833	%

Proposed checking role. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

After the action. Output per relevant input alongside quality and resource impacts.

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

Institution and data context

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. Check high shipment cost per tonne-kilometreDEC-DP37-002 · Logistics costs · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate high shipment cost per tonne-kilometre.

Validation required

Method. Shipment cost / (actual load tonnes × verified route kilometres). Match empty-return treatment and cost allocation.

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. Shipment cost [LKR]; Actual carried load [t]; Verified travelled route distance [km]

Other required evidence. Shipment cost; load tonnes; verified distance kilometres; route; period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — logistics costs · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Shipment cost	180,000	LKR
Actual carried load	12	t
Verified travelled route distance	80	km
Shipment cost per tonne-kilometre	187.5	LKR/(t km)

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

Proposed checking role. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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

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 shipments outside approved temperature conditionsDEC-DP37-003 · Cold chain · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate shipments outside approved temperature conditions.

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 [°C]; Example lower comparison bound [°C]; Example upper comparison bound [°C]; 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. Shipment; temperature series; exposure duration; product limits; sensor calibration.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — cold chain · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parameter and applicable use	Shipment temperature for specified product/window
Measured result	8	°C
Example lower comparison bound	0	°C
Example upper comparison bound	5	°C
Original and limit unit	°C
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	8	°C

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. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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?

4. Review export unit values and destination performanceDEC-DP37-004 · Export performance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review export unit values and destination performance.

Validation required

Method. Recorded export value / Export quantity on matching product basis, for the same product, process and period.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate low productivity, compare practices, or improve the input/output measurements.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Recorded export value [LKR]; Export quantity on matching product basis [kg]

Other required evidence. Product; destination; export value; quantity; currency; period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — export performance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Recorded export value	8,832,000	LKR
Export quantity on matching product basis	4,500	kg
Output per resource	1,962.667	LKR/kg

A unit value mixes prices and product composition. It is not automatically a like-for-like market price. Match grade, product code, currency and period.

Proposed checking role. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

After the action. Output per relevant input alongside quality and resource impacts.

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

Institution and data context

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. Match processing demand to compatible supplier lotsDEC-DP37-005 · Raw materials · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Match processing demand to compatible supplier lots.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Material specification; supplier stock; commitments; arrival window; facility demand.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — raw materials · 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. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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?

6. Compare orders with usable processing capacityDEC-DP37-006 · Capacity planning · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare orders with usable processing capacity.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Orders; product mix; machine capacity; downtime; shifts; material availability.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — capacity planning · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

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. Schedule batches around quality and delivery constraintsDEC-DP37-007 · Production scheduling · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Schedule batches around quality and delivery constraints.

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. Orders; due dates; equipment; changeover; staff; materials; sanitation windows.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — production scheduling · 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. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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?

8. Choose what to handle first: product nonconformities for technical investigationDEC-DP37-008 · Quality assurance · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize product nonconformities for technical investigation.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Lot; specification; test result; method; process condition; corrective history.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — quality assurance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parameter and applicable use	Product dimension under specification
Measured result	10.4	mm
Example lower comparison bound	9.8	mm
Example upper comparison bound	10.2	mm
Original and limit unit	mm
Sampling and analytical method/version	Sample laboratory method
Limit source, version and use	Fictional comparison bounds; not a regulatory limit
Parameter, unit, use and averaging period match	Yes
Result is below a reporting/detection limit	No
Averaging interval, sampling depth or process basis	Sample stated sampling/averaging basis
Measured value	10.4	mm

Example bounds establish no compliance or diagnosis. Ambient, drinking-water, effluent, crop, food, air and noise standards are not interchangeable. A censored result is not an exact zero.

Proposed checking role. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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?

9. Find affected lots when a source defect is confirmedDEC-DP37-009 · Traceability and recall · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify affected lots when a source defect is confirmed.

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. Supplier lot; production batch; ingredients; shipments; customers; trace links.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — traceability and recall · 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. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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?

10. Select loss-reduction actions at processing bottlenecksDEC-DP37-010 · Food loss · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select loss-reduction actions at processing bottlenecks.

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. Input; output; rejects; by-products; moisture; stage; loss cause.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — food loss · 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. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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?

11. Target processes with high energy per saleable unitDEC-DP37-011 · Energy efficiency · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Target processes with high energy per saleable unit.

Validation required

Method. Energy consumed / Saleable product output, for the same product, process and period.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate low productivity, compare practices, or improve the input/output measurements.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Energy consumed [kWh]; Saleable product output [kg]

Other required evidence. Saleable output; energy kWh; machine hours; product; process; period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — energy efficiency · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Energy consumed	3,128	kWh
Saleable product output	4,500	kg
Specific energy use	0.695	kWh/kg

Proposed checking role. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

After the action. Output per relevant input alongside quality and resource impacts.

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

Institution and data context

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. Compare process water use and reuse alternativesDEC-DP37-012 · Water efficiency · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare process water use and reuse 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. Water input; usable recycled water; output; water quality; costs; controls.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Drying upgrade · 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 process water use and reuse alternatives; Water input and usable recycled water evidence needed
Resource needs and adverse effects	Sample water, labour, access and safeguard trade-offs
Budget remaining after option	300,000	LKR

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

Proposed checking role. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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?

13. Choose what to handle first: critical equipment repairs and preventive workDEC-DP37-013 · Equipment reliability · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize critical equipment repairs and preventive work.

Validation required

Method. Open age = assessment date − received date. Days past due = max(0, assessment date − recorded due date) for open cases. Show documented critical conditions separately.

Next step. Follow up overdue case. Authorize feasible repair through the proper work process, inspect further, or restrict unsafe use.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Received or defect observed; Recorded due date; Assessment date; Case/work closed; Documented critical unresolved condition; Responsible office or maintainer; Actual closure date when closed

Other required evidence. Asset; downtime; condition; failure history; production criticality; repair cost.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — equipment reliability · 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. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

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. Avoid using expired or quarantined materialsDEC-DP37-014 · Inventory expiry · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Avoid using expired or quarantined materials.

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. Lot; stock; commitments; expiry; storage condition; quarantine; demand.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — inventory expiry · 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. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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?

15. Check packaging against destination and buyer requirementsDEC-DP37-015 · Packaging compliance · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Check packaging against destination and buyer requirements.

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. Product; Product evidence reference; packaging; packaging evidence reference; label version; label version evidence reference; destination rules; destination rules evidence reference; buyer specification; buyer specification evidence reference; review; review evidence reference

Other required evidence. Product; packaging; label version; destination rules; buyer specification; review.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — packaging compliance · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Product	Missing
Product evidence reference
packaging	Documented
packaging evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
label version	Documented
label version evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
destination rules	Documented
destination rules evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
buyer specification	Documented
buyer specification evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
review	Documented
review 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. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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?

16. Find cash shortfalls across purchase production and payment cyclesDEC-DP37-016 · Working capital · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify cash shortfalls across purchase production and payment cycles.

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. Receivables; payables; inventory; operating payments; dates; opening cash.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — working capital · 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. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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?

17. Compare equipment and facility expansion investmentsDEC-DP37-017 · Expansion appraisal · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare equipment and facility expansion investments.

Verified published formula · Discounted cash-flow NPV

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

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

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

Other required evidence. Capital cost; output; demand; operating costs; lifespan; finance; discount rate.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — expansion appraisal · 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. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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

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. Refer complete shipment documentation for required clearanceDEC-DP37-018 · Export documentation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer complete shipment documentation for required clearance.

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. Shipment; Shipment evidence reference; certificates; certificates evidence reference; origin; origin evidence reference; permits; permits evidence reference; specification; specification evidence reference; current requirements; current requirements evidence reference; authority; authority evidence reference

Other required evidence. Shipment; certificates; origin; permits; specification; current requirements; authority.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — export documentation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Shipment	Missing
Shipment evidence reference
certificates	Documented
certificates evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
origin	Documented
origin evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
permits	Documented
permits evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
specification	Documented
specification evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
current requirements	Documented
current requirements evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
authority	Documented
authority 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. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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

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. Target technical training to process-quality and safety gapsDEC-DP37-019 · Workforce capability · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Target technical training to process-quality and safety gaps.

Validation required

Method. 100 × distinct covered eligible units / eligible frame. Known uncovered = frame − covered − unknown.

Next step. Review evidence. Select eligible underserved units for outreach, investigate missing coverage, or revise the verified frame.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Required eligible frame [workers]; Distinct members of that frame covered [workers]; Frame members with unknown coverage [workers]

Other required evidence. Skills needs; training; competence evidence; incidents; roles; shift coverage.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — workforce capability · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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

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

Institution and data context

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 missing units versions and batch referencesDEC-DP37-020 · Process records · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Correct missing units versions and batch references.

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. Process record; Process record evidence reference; batch; batch evidence reference; timestamp; timestamp evidence reference; measurement unit; measurement unit evidence reference; calibration; calibration evidence reference; source; source evidence reference; version; version evidence reference

Other required evidence. Process record; batch; timestamp; measurement unit; calibration; source; version.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — process records · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Process record	Missing
Process record evidence reference
batch	Documented
batch evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
timestamp	Documented
timestamp evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
measurement unit	Documented
measurement unit evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
calibration	Documented
calibration evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
source	Documented
source evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
version	Documented
version 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. Production/quality manager and trade/logistics/finance specialist.

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

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?

Processors and Exporters

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?