Universities and Researchers

Tell us what to change or add.

Your name (optional)Your roleReview date

Continue a saved review

1. Check a decision

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

2. Try the inputs

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

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

3. Check each decision

1. Select datasets suitable for spatial and temporal comparison 2. Compare validated soil and forest outcomes across interventions 3. Find biodiversity comparisons limited by survey design 4. Choose what to handle first: scientific estimates awaiting independent assessment 5. Select questions aligned with institutional evidence gaps 6. Check research approvals before collecting restricted evidence 7. Compare designs for adequate precision and representation 8. Require independent evidence before applying predictive models 9. Resolve contradictory measurements without altering originals 10. Reproduce reported results from exact evidence versions 11. Match institutional research needs with qualified expertise 12. Determine whether evidence supports causal claims 13. Choose additional measurements that reduce material uncertainty 14. Compare study proposals under budget and evidence constraints 15. Review consent rights and sensitivity before releasing data 16. Prevent loss of critical follow-up observations 17. Check analytical controls supporting research measurements 18. Prepare evidence packages for specific institutional decisions 19. Compare use and effects of research outputs 20. Resolve inconsistent scientific variables and taxonomic labels

1. Select datasets suitable for spatial and temporal comparisonDEC-DP40-001 · Dataset selection · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select datasets suitable for spatial and temporal comparison.

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. Coverage; Coverage evidence reference; dates; dates evidence reference; methods; methods evidence reference; units; units evidence reference; sampling; sampling evidence reference; rights; rights evidence reference; source versions; source versions evidence reference

Other required evidence. Coverage; dates; methods; units; sampling; rights; source versions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — dataset selection · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Coverage	Missing
Coverage evidence reference
dates	Documented
dates evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
methods	Documented
methods evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
units	Documented
units evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
sampling	Documented
sampling evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
rights	Documented
rights evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
source versions	Documented
source versions 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. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. 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 validated soil and forest outcomes across interventionsDEC-DP40-002 · Intervention research · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare validated soil and forest outcomes across interventions.

Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic

Method. (Treatment after−before) − (comparison after−before), using the same outcome definition and periods.

Next step. Supply study-design evidence. Continue, adapt, expand or stop a programme based on defensible outcome evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

World Bank · Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition
Institution publication · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170

The formula is verified. Causal interpretation still requires a defensible study design, comparison and assumptions.

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

Analysis inputs. Treatment Comparable soil-carbon stock before [t C/ha]; Treatment Comparable soil-carbon stock after [t C/ha]; Comparison Comparable soil-carbon stock before [t C/ha]; Comparison Comparable soil-carbon stock after [t C/ha]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Treatment; baseline; follow-up; controls; confounders; uncertainty; protocol.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — intervention research · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Comparable soil-carbon stock before	42	t C/ha
Treatment Comparable soil-carbon stock after	59	t C/ha
Comparison Comparable soil-carbon stock before	39	t C/ha
Comparison Comparable soil-carbon stock after	46	t C/ha
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Comparable soil-carbon stock /example matching definition1
Difference in changes	10	t C/ha

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

Proposed checking role. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer.

After the action. Verified outcomes, costs, distributional effects and evidence strength.

World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition — Institution publication. Chapter7 difference-in-differences. Published difference-in-differences estimator and study assumptions; aggregate examples do not establish causation.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

3. Find biodiversity comparisons limited by survey designDEC-DP40-003 · Sampling limitations · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Identify biodiversity comparisons limited by survey design.

Validation required

Method. Show distinct observed species with survey effort, protocol, season and completed visits. No correction for detection is silently inferred.

Next step. Review survey comparability. Adjust survey effort or refer habitat/species actions for specialist review.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Observed distinct species [species]; Survey effort [hours]; Survey protocol and version; Survey season and taxonomic scope; All planned survey visits completed

Other required evidence. Survey events; taxa; effort; detection; methods; season; missing visits.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — sampling limitations · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Observed distinct species	28	species
Survey effort	18	hours
Survey protocol and version	Sample protocol1
Survey season and taxonomic scope	Sample matched season / taxon group
All planned survey visits completed	Yes
Observed richness	28	species
Recorded effort	18	hours

Observed richness is not population size or occupancy. Comparable effort alone does not remove detection bias or establish a biodiversity trend.

Proposed checking role. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer.

After the action. Comparable biodiversity estimates, effort and unintended effects.

GBIF biological survey publishing guide — Institution publication. Version1.0.2, sections5.4 to5.7 and7.3. Survey event, effort, protocol, sampling scope and non-detection context; not a population estimator.
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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

4. Choose what to handle first: scientific estimates awaiting independent assessmentDEC-DP40-004 · Expert review · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prioritize scientific estimates awaiting independent assessment.

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. Estimate; method; inputs; reviewer expertise; conflicts; due date; status.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — expert review · 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. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access 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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

5. Select questions aligned with institutional evidence gapsDEC-DP40-005 · Research questions · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Select questions aligned with institutional evidence gaps.

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. Decision need; literature gaps; feasible methods; data access; costs; expected use.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Paired-site study · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Option cost	1,500,000	LKR
Available budget	1,800,000	LKR
Mandatory constraints	Met
Expected benefit and its evidence	Select questions aligned with institutional evidence gaps; Decision need and literature gaps 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. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access 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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

6. Check research approvals before collecting restricted evidenceDEC-DP40-006 · Ethics and permissions · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Check research approvals before collecting restricted evidence.

Validation required

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

Next step. Complete the evidence. Request correction, refer mandatory failures, or accept the inspected item with conditions.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Protocol; Protocol evidence reference; participants; participants evidence reference; consent; consent evidence reference; permits; permits evidence reference; ethics review; ethics review evidence reference; location; location evidence reference; conditions; conditions evidence reference

Other required evidence. Protocol; participants; consent; permits; ethics review; location; conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — ethics and permissions · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Protocol	Missing
Protocol evidence reference
participants	Documented
participants evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
consent	Documented
consent evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
permits	Documented
permits evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
ethics review	Documented
ethics review evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
location	Documented
location evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
conditions	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. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access 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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

7. Compare designs for adequate precision and representationDEC-DP40-007 · Sampling design · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare designs for adequate precision and representation.

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. Population frame; strata; expected variance; sample size; cost; access.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Paired-site study · 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 designs for adequate precision and representation; Population frame and strata 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. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access 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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

8. Require independent evidence before applying predictive modelsDEC-DP40-008 · Model validation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Require independent evidence before applying predictive models.

Validation required

Method. Reproduced minus expected result, within an explicitly supplied absolute tolerance, using the same exact input/method versions and a separate checker. Retain originals, code, parameters and environment evidence.

Next step. Investigate reproduction difference. Accept reproducible evidence for review, investigate differences, or withhold an unsupported result.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Earlier/source value [kg/ha]; Independently reproduced value [kg/ha]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [kg/ha]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer

Other required evidence. Model; training data; validation data; parameters; metrics; domain; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — model validation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Earlier/source value	100	kg/ha
Independently reproduced value	90	kg/ha
Original measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Comparison measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Compared measure and definition	Sample comparable kg/ha measure; same input scope
Documented absolute comparison tolerance	0.01	kg/ha
Expected input/method version	Sample input1 /method1
Reproduced input/method version	Sample input1 /method1
Original result creator	Preparation officer
Independent reproducer	Independent checking officer
Difference	-10	kg/ha
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer.

After the action. Independent reproduction within the approved tolerance.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

9. Resolve contradictory measurements without altering originalsDEC-DP40-009 · Data cleaning · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve contradictory measurements without altering originals.

Validation required

Method. Later/comparison value minus Earlier/source value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Earlier/source value when the earlier value is positive.

Next step. Review evidence. Assign discrepancies to the custodian, accept documented corrections, or retain unresolved versions.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Original source measurement [t C/ha]; Independent comparison measurement [t C/ha]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition

Other required evidence. Measurement ID; raw value; units; calibration; duplicate tests; correction evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — data cleaning · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Original source measurement	100	t C/ha
Independent comparison measurement	90	t C/ha
Original measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Comparison measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Compared measure and definition	Sample comparable t C/ha measure; same input scope
Difference	-10	t C/ha
Relative change	-10	%

Keep both originals, units, scope, method, calibration and correction history. A difference does not identify which source is correct; no automatic averaging or overwrite.

Proposed checking role. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access 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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

10. Reproduce reported results from exact evidence versionsDEC-DP40-010 · Reproducibility · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Reproduce reported results from exact evidence versions.

Validation required

Next step. Investigate reproduction difference. Accept reproducible evidence for review, investigate differences, or withhold an unsupported result.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Earlier/source value [t C/ha]; Independently reproduced value [t C/ha]; Original measurement unit; Comparison measurement unit; Compared measure and definition; Documented absolute comparison tolerance [t C/ha]; Expected input/method version; Reproduced input/method version; Original result creator; Independent reproducer

Other required evidence. Dataset hashes; code; model version; parameters; environment; output; tolerance.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — reproducibility · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Earlier/source value	100	t C/ha
Independently reproduced value	90	t C/ha
Original measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Comparison measurement unit	Sample matching unit
Compared measure and definition	Sample comparable t C/ha measure; same input scope
Documented absolute comparison tolerance	0.01	t C/ha
Expected input/method version	Sample input1 /method1
Reproduced input/method version	Sample input1 /method1
Original result creator	Preparation officer
Independent reproducer	Independent checking officer
Difference	-10	t C/ha
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer.

After the action. Independent reproduction within the approved tolerance.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

11. Match institutional research needs with qualified expertiseDEC-DP40-011 · Research collaboration · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Match institutional research needs with qualified expertise.

Validation required

Method. Match documented expertise, available effort, date windows and required conflict/clearance evidence. A match suggests a candidate; it appoints nobody.

Next step. Resolve specification, window or conditions. 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. Documented skills/expertise; Task requirement; Available qualified effort [hours]; Required effort [hours]; Conflicts, clearance and mandate; Availability begins; Availability ends; Task window begins; Task window ends

Other required evidence. Question; expertise; availability; conflicts; institutional scope; required deliverable.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — research collaboration · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Documented skills/expertise	Sample required skill
Task requirement	Sample required skill
Available qualified effort	24	hours
Required effort	16	hours
Conflicts, clearance and mandate	Unresolved
Availability begins	2025-06-01
Availability ends	2025-06-20
Task window begins	2025-06-05
Task window ends	2025-06-18
Available minus required hours	8	hours

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

Proposed checking role. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access 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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

12. Determine whether evidence supports causal claimsDEC-DP40-012 · Causal interpretation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Determine whether evidence supports causal claims.

Validation required

Method. Check whether the question has a defined outcome, appropriate study design, comparison, baseline/follow-up, sampling, confounding and attrition evidence. Do not manufacture an effect estimate from missing design information.

Next step. Complete the evidence. Continue, adapt, expand or stop a programme based on defensible outcome evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Study design; Study design evidence reference; comparison; comparison evidence reference; baseline; baseline evidence reference; confounders; confounders evidence reference; attrition; attrition evidence reference; sensitivity; sensitivity evidence reference; assumptions; assumptions evidence reference

Other required evidence. Study design; comparison; baseline; confounders; attrition; sensitivity; assumptions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — causal interpretation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Study design	Missing
Study design evidence reference
comparison	Documented
comparison evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
baseline	Documented
baseline evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
confounders	Documented
confounders evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
attrition	Documented
attrition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
sensitivity	Documented
sensitivity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
assumptions	Documented
assumptions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Study evidence gaps	1	items

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

Proposed checking role. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer.

After the action. Verified outcomes, costs, distributional effects and evidence strength.

World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition — Institution publication. Chapter7 difference-in-differences. Published difference-in-differences estimator and study assumptions; aggregate examples do not establish causation.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

13. Choose additional measurements that reduce material uncertaintyDEC-DP40-013 · Uncertainty priorities · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Choose additional measurements that reduce material 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. Model sensitivity; parameter uncertainty; measurement options; costs; decision context.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Paired-site study · 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	Choose additional measurements that reduce material uncertainty; Model sensitivity and parameter uncertainty 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. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access 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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

14. Compare study proposals under budget and evidence constraintsDEC-DP40-014 · Research funding · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare study proposals under budget and evidence constraints.

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. Proposal; scientific value; feasibility; costs; ethics; dependencies; alternatives.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Paired-site study · 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 study proposals under budget and evidence constraints; Proposal and scientific value 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. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access 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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

15. Review consent rights and sensitivity before releasing dataDEC-DP40-015 · Data publication · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review consent rights and sensitivity before releasing data.

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. Grant only scoped authorized access, aggregate/redact, refuse, or request approval.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Dataset; Dataset evidence reference; license; license evidence reference; participant consent; participant consent evidence reference; species sensitivity; species sensitivity evidence reference; restrictions; restrictions evidence reference; approval; approval evidence reference

Other required evidence. Dataset; license; participant consent; species sensitivity; restrictions; approval.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — data publication · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Dataset	Missing
Dataset evidence reference
license	Documented
license evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
participant consent	Documented
participant consent evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
species sensitivity	Documented
species sensitivity evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
restrictions	Documented
restrictions evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
approval	Documented
approval 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. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer.

After the action. Permitted use, expiry compliance and investigated disclosure incidents.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

16. Prevent loss of critical follow-up observationsDEC-DP40-016 · Longitudinal studies · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prevent loss of critical follow-up observations.

Validation required

Method. Lower =100 × known survivors / original cohort. Upper =100 × (known survivors + unknown) / original cohort. Survivors + known failures + unknown = original cohort; replacements do not enter it.

Next step. Review evidence. Replace failed establishment, alter maintenance, or investigate site/treatment causes.

Inputs, example and sources

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

Analysis inputs. Original distinct cohort [participants]; Known continuing original members [participants]; Known withdrawals [participants]; Unknown follow-up [participants]; Later entrants outside original cohort [participants]

Other required evidence. Cohort; planned visits; completed visits; attrition; resources; access.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — longitudinal studies · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Original distinct cohort	450	participants
Known continuing original members	351	participants
Known withdrawals	70	participants
Unknown follow-up	29	participants
Later entrants outside original cohort	18	participants
Confirmed continuation lower bound	78	%
Continuation upper bound	84.444	%
Unknown follow-up	29	participants

These bounds account for unknown status; they are not statistical confidence intervals. Use actual follow-up dates and distinguish cohort membership from repeated visits.

Proposed checking role. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer.

After the action. Survival of the original cohort, replacements and condition separately.

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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

17. Check analytical controls supporting research measurementsDEC-DP40-017 · Laboratory quality · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Verify analytical controls supporting research measurements.

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. Sample custody; Sample custody evidence reference; standards; standards evidence reference; blanks; blanks evidence reference; duplicates; duplicates evidence reference; calibration; calibration evidence reference; method; method evidence reference; accreditation; accreditation evidence reference

Other required evidence. Sample custody; standards; blanks; duplicates; calibration; method; accreditation.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — laboratory quality · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Sample custody	Missing
Sample custody evidence reference
standards	Documented
standards evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
blanks	Documented
blanks evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
duplicates	Documented
duplicates evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
calibration	Documented
calibration evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
method	Documented
method evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
accreditation	Documented
accreditation 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. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access 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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

18. Prepare evidence packages for specific institutional decisionsDEC-DP40-018 · Knowledge transfer · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Prepare evidence packages for specific institutional decisions.

Validation required

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

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

Inputs, example and sources

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

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

Other required evidence. Decision case; findings; applicability; uncertainty; consultations; expert recommendation.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — knowledge transfer · Laggala Pallegama

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

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

Proposed checking role. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer.

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

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

Institution and data context

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

19. Compare use and effects of research outputsDEC-DP40-019 · Research outcomes · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Evaluate use and effects of research outputs.

Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic

Method. (Treatment after−before) − (comparison after−before), using the same outcome definition and periods.

Next step. Supply study-design evidence. Continue, adapt, expand or stop a programme based on defensible outcome evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

World Bank · Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition
Institution publication · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170

The formula is verified. Causal interpretation still requires a defensible study design, comparison and assumptions.

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

Analysis inputs. Treatment Verified research recommendation uptake before [%]; Treatment Verified research recommendation uptake after [%]; Comparison Verified research recommendation uptake before [%]; Comparison Verified research recommendation uptake after [%]; Study design and comparability evidence; Outcome definition, method and reference basis

Other required evidence. Research output; uptake; institutional action; outcome; external factors; follow-up.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — research outcomes · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Treatment Verified research recommendation uptake before	42	%
Treatment Verified research recommendation uptake after	59	%
Comparison Verified research recommendation uptake before	39	%
Comparison Verified research recommendation uptake after	46	%
Study design and comparability evidence	Missing
Outcome definition, method and reference basis	Verified research recommendation uptake /example matching definition1
Difference in changes	10	%

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

Proposed checking role. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access reviewer.

After the action. Verified outcomes, costs, distributional effects and evidence strength.

World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition — Institution publication. Chapter7 difference-in-differences. Published difference-in-differences estimator and study assumptions; aggregate examples do not establish causation.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

20. Resolve inconsistent scientific variables and taxonomic labelsDEC-DP40-020 · Scientific vocabulary · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Resolve inconsistent scientific variables and taxonomic labels.

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. Original variable; Original variable evidence reference; definition; definition evidence reference; unit; unit evidence reference; taxon reference; taxon reference evidence reference; edition; edition evidence reference; reviewed mapping; reviewed mapping evidence reference

Other required evidence. Original variable; definition; unit; taxon reference; edition; reviewed mapping.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — scientific vocabulary · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Original variable	Missing
Original variable evidence reference
definition	Documented
definition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
unit	Documented
unit evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
taxon reference	Documented
taxon reference evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
edition	Documented
edition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
reviewed mapping	Documented
reviewed mapping 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. Principal investigator, statistician and ethics/data-access 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

CIFOR-ICRAF dashboards — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
Wildlife research permissions — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
GBIF guide for publishing biological survey and monitoring data — Institution publication. Guide v1.0.2: sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.7 on time, protocol and sampling effort. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

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

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

4. Existing data forms for your institution

Check which existing source fields can supply the decision inputs.

Hydro Meteorological Stations · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 678a3e2dcda3b2df

Field	Unit	Required
Station Name	Confirm if needed	No
River Basin	Confirm if needed	No
Quadrant	Confirm if needed	No
X_Meter	Confirm if needed	No
Y_Meter	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No

Agro Meteorological Stations · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 4404e8d7fb7938f5

Field	Unit	Required
Station ID	Confirm if needed	No
Station Name	Confirm if needed	No
Station Code	Confirm if needed	No
Latitude	Confirm if needed	No
Longitude	Confirm if needed	No
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
qualifier	Confirm if needed	No
elevation	Confirm if needed	No

Rainguage Stations · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 34f3d59c2619b006

Field	Unit	Required
Serial Number	Confirm if needed	No
Station Name	Confirm if needed	No
District	Confirm if needed	No
Latitude	Confirm if needed	No
Longitude	Confirm if needed	No
Begin Date	Confirm if needed	No
End Date	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
qualifier	Confirm if needed	No
elevation	Confirm if needed	No

Rainfall · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 1d5963784380e5d7

Field	Unit	Required
stationid	Confirm if needed	No
date	Confirm if needed	No
rainfall_mm	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Synoptic Stations · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: c7953153a5200702

Field	Unit	Required
Serial Number	Confirm if needed	No
Station Name	Confirm if needed	No
District	Confirm if needed	No
Latitude	Confirm if needed	No
Longitude	Confirm if needed	No
Begin Date	Confirm if needed	No
End Date	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
qualifier	Confirm if needed	No
elevation	Confirm if needed	No

Climate Zones · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 2fd8102b7732d899

Field	Unit	Required
Zone_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Climate_Classification	Confirm if needed	No
ID	Confirm if needed	No
AGCODE	Confirm if needed	No
AGNAME	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter	Confirm if needed	No
Terrain	Confirm if needed	No
AGRO_Zone	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Hydro Zones · Rainfall & Weather

Existing form reference: 8645ce85db37fa03

Field	Unit	Required
Zone ID	Confirm if needed	No
Zone Area	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter	Confirm if needed	No
Hydro_Type	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Educational Institutions · Geospatial Evidence

Existing form reference: 1b3ce68ebc0d514d

Field	Unit	Required
District	Confirm if needed	No
Province	Confirm if needed	No
Census No	Confirm if needed	No
School Name	Confirm if needed	No
School Level	Confirm if needed	No
School Type	Confirm if needed	No
Year Span	Confirm if needed	No
school_sex_report	Confirm if needed	No
available_medium	Confirm if needed	No
zone	Confirm if needed	No
edu_div	Confirm if needed	No
electorate	Confirm if needed	No
DS Division	Confirm if needed	No
GN Division	Confirm if needed	No

Educational Institutions · Geospatial Evidence

Existing form reference: 3d54deca134ce79e

Field	Unit	Required
District	Confirm if needed	No
Province	Confirm if needed	No
census_no	Confirm if needed	No
school_nam	Confirm if needed	No
school_lev	Confirm if needed	No
school_typ	Confirm if needed	No
year_span	Confirm if needed	No
zone	Confirm if needed	No
electorate	Confirm if needed	No
dsd	Confirm if needed	No
gnd	Confirm if needed	No

Crop categories · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 816a25e50e472c74

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

Crop sub categories · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 9ec496a5e0c6aadf

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

Crops · Crop Production

Existing form reference: f6a51a2d7e2080bc

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

Crop varieties · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 4407b75d4bb7f035

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

Export crops · Crop Production

Existing form reference: 31afd4eae072f89f

Field	Unit	Required

Forest area by type, 2018–2023 · Forest Resources

Existing form reference: 5d4e57af1e6712f1

Field	Unit	Required
Classification	Confirm if needed	No
Forest type	Confirm if needed	No
Year	Confirm if needed	No
Area	Confirm if needed	No

Public source inventory, October 2026 · Source Coverage · Calculated

Existing form reference: a9b8c8efe788ee9a

Field	Unit	Required
Source identity	Confirm if needed	No
Source name	Confirm if needed	No
Publisher	Confirm if needed	No
Subject	Confirm if needed	No
Acquisition status	Confirm if needed	No
Captured rows	rows	No
Published rows	rows	No
Captured UTC	Confirm if needed	No
Coverage	Confirm if needed	No
Time field	Confirm if needed	No
Source URL	Confirm if needed	No

5. Documents and images

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

Open this screen for Universities and Researchers See the presentation example

Universities and Researchers Documents and images prototype screen — Universities and Researchers. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

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

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

What your institution needs to confirm

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

6. Data structure management

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

Open this screen for Universities and Researchers See the presentation example

Universities and Researchers Data structure management prototype screen — Universities and Researchers. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

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

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

What your institution needs to confirm

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

7. Users and access

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

Open this screen for Universities and Researchers See the presentation example

Universities and Researchers Users and access prototype screen — Universities and Researchers. Prototype screen. Select the image to enlarge it.

What you can try

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

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

What your institution needs to confirm

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

9. Anything else we should change?

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

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

Universities and Researchers

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?