diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..c55c5b078
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+title: Document Info
+reportDate: October 2026
+reportType: Technical Reference
+reportTitle: Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual
+reportSubTitle: System Response Library
+reportAuthors: ['Adam Gohs, P.E.']
+reportAbstract: Technical reference documenting the methods shared by the eight concentrated leak erosion (CLE) screening models in the System Response library. Each model computes a system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level from an eight-node event tree that runs from a flaw through initiation, continuation, three progression conditions, intervention, and breach. This manual documents what the models have in common, namely the event-tree structure and node conventions, the risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring used to estimate flaw probabilities, the two initiation treatments (a headwater gate at the bottom of an open crest crack, and a cylindrical-pipe hydraulic shear stress analysis for compaction flaws, with its shared critical shear stress table), the failure-pathway conventions that gate continuation, roof support, and flow limitation, and the nodal results the models report. The mechanism-specific flaw assessments are documented in each model's own manual.
+reportSubjectTerms: ['CLE', 'Concentrated Leak Erosion', 'Screening', 'Event Tree', 'System Response Probability', 'System Response Curve', 'Risk Factor', 'Likelihood Factor', 'Critical Shear Stress', 'Cylindrical Pipe', 'Roof Support', 'Crack Filling', 'Flow Limitation', 'Monte Carlo']
+citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual, Lakewood, CO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, 2026.'
+---
+
+import Link from '@docusaurus/Link';
+import DocumentMetadata from '@site/src/components/DocumentMetadata';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+
+
+
+# Document Information
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fbec3b621
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: Version History
+---
+
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableVersionHistory from '@site/src/components/TableVersionHistory';
+
+
+
+# Version History
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..eb83a142d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+title: Preface
+---
+
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+
+
+
+# Preface
+
+This document provides a technical reference for the methods shared by the eight concentrated leak erosion (CLE) screening models in the System
+Response library. Each model computes a system response probability (SRP) as a function of headwater elevation for one CLE mechanism: cross-valley
+differential settlement, differential settlement adjacent to a wall or cliff, poor compaction within the core, poor compaction adjacent to a conduit,
+poor compaction adjacent to a wall or cliff, poor compaction along the foundation or abutment contact, desiccation cracking at the crest, and frost
+cracking at the crest. The models are screening-level: they apply simplifications intended to reduce input burden while avoiding false negatives, and
+any application that performs screening-level risk analysis can use them.
+
+The eight models differ in how they estimate the probability that a flaw exists and in where that flaw sits in the embankment. Everything else is
+common to the family: the eight-node event tree and how each node is populated, the scoring scheme used to turn qualitative site factors into a flaw
+probability, the two initiation treatments, the failure-pathway rules that decide which filter, materials, and upstream elements apply at each pool
+level, and the form of the results. This manual documents those common methods once. Each model's own technical reference manual documents its flaw
+assessment and its mechanism-specific inputs, and refers to this manual for the rest. The continuation (filter evaluation) node is evaluated by a
+shared continuation method with its own manual, the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual; this manual documents only
+when that method is applied.
+
+The intended audience includes dam safety engineers evaluating whether the CLE screening models are appropriate for their assessment, and peer
+reviewers checking the technical basis of screening-level results. Readers are assumed to have a general background in internal-erosion risk
+analysis — event trees, concentrated leak erosion mechanics, and probability concepts — but no familiarity with the software implementation is
+required.
+
+## Document Organization
+
+- **[Model Overview](./02-model-overview.mdx)** — The purpose and intended use of the CLE screening models, a summary of their common execution
+ pathway, their engineering basis, a comparison with detailed methods, the two groups the eight models fall into, and their relationship to the
+ toolbox methods.
+- **[Common Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx)** — The inputs shared across the family: hydraulic loading, the units and datum
+ convention, the embankment description, the failure-pathway inputs, the upstream seepage-limiting elements, the initiation material inputs of the
+ compaction models, and the intervention and breach probabilities.
+- **[Event Tree](./04-event-tree.mdx)** — The eight event-tree nodes, which nodes vary with pool level, how the headwater grid is formed, and how the
+ SRP is computed.
+- **[Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx)** — The risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring scheme, the optional flaw-continuity stage,
+ observation overrides, and the flaw elevation each model passes to the downstream nodes.
+- **[Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx)** — The headwater gate used by the crest-crack models, and the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis used by
+ the compaction models, with its critical shear stress and initial pipe diameter defaults.
+- **[Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx)** — How the failure pathway and any intersecting filter gate the
+ continuation and roof-support nodes, and how the crack-filling and flow-limitation nodes are evaluated.
+- **[Assumptions and Limitations](./08-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx)** — Each common modeling assumption with its engineering basis, its effect
+ on results, and the conditions under which it may not hold.
+- **[Output and Interpretation](./09-output-and-interpretation.mdx)** — The results the models produce, how to read the system response curve and
+ its node breakdown, and the role of screening results relative to detailed analysis.
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..87accfa5e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,193 @@
+---
+title: Model Overview
+---
+
+import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference';
+import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical';
+
+
+
+# Model Overview
+
+## Purpose
+
+Each CLE screening model computes a system response curve for one concentrated leak erosion mechanism as a function of headwater elevation. The
+system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level is the conditional probability of breach of the embankment by concentrated leak erosion
+through a flaw of that mechanism, given that pool level. The curve of SRP values across the range of headwater levels characterizes the
+embankment's vulnerability to the mechanism.
+
+Concentrated leak erosion is erosion of the walls of an open crack, gap, or poorly compacted zone by water flowing through it. The failure mode
+requires a continuous flaw through the embankment, a hydraulic shear stress on the flaw walls large enough to initiate erosion, an unfiltered exit
+that lets the eroded soil leave the embankment, an enlarging pipe that stays open and is neither filled nor starved of flow, unsuccessful
+detection and intervention, and finally an uncontrolled release of the impounded water.
+
+## Intended Use
+
+The CLE screening models are screening-level assessments of concentrated leak erosion risk. They make simplifying and generally conservative
+assumptions with two goals:
+
+- **Preventing false negatives** — The models are designed to avoid underestimating risk at the screening level, so that embankments with potential
+ concentrated leak erosion concerns are flagged for further analysis.
+- **Reducing input burden** — Qualitative selections (compaction categories, climate categories, conduit and wall descriptions, the embankment
+ type) substitute for site-specific measurements, and default distributions cover the erodibility and initial-opening properties that are
+ typically unavailable at the screening stage.
+
+The models are not intended for detailed or semi-quantitative risk assessments. For higher-level analyses, the full concentrated leak erosion
+toolbox methods and the internal-erosion probability methods they draw on provide the complete methodologies with full parameterization (see
+[Comparison with Detailed Models](#comparison-with-detailed-models)).
+
+## How the Model Works
+
+Every CLE screening model executes the same three stages:
+
+1. **Flaw assessment** — The model estimates the probability that a continuous flaw of its mechanism exists through the embankment, and the
+ elevation of that flaw. The probability comes from scoring qualitative and geometric site factors (or, for cross-valley settlement, from a
+ settlement-based relationship), and an observation of the flaw — leakage, wet spots, or observed continuous cracking, depending on the model —
+ can override it to certainty. The flaw probability is the same at every pool level (see [Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx)).
+
+2. **Pathway resolution** — The model resolves the failure pathway through the embankment at the flaw elevation: whether a filter intersects it
+ and where the filter's top lies, which materials must hold a roof over the enlarging pipe, and which upstream seepage-limiting elements still
+ reach the flaw (see [Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx)).
+
+3. **Event-tree assembly** — At each headwater level, the model composes the eight node probabilities and multiplies them to produce the SRP.
+ Initiation is either a gate on the headwater rising above the bottom of an open crest crack, or a Monte Carlo cylindrical-pipe analysis of the
+ hydraulic shear stress at the flaw (see [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx) and [Event Tree](./04-event-tree.mdx)).
+
+## Physics Basis
+
+The family combines the following engineering methods:
+
+- **Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring** for the probability of a continuous flaw, in which each site factor is assigned a likelihood
+ factor, weighted by a risk factor, and the weighted sum is mapped to a flaw probability (see
+ [Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx))
+- **Hydraulic shear stress on the walls of a cylindrical pipe** compared with the soil's critical shear stress for the initiation of erosion in a
+ compaction flaw, as documented in the
+ [Cylindrical Pipe](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/cylindrical-pipe) chapter
+ of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation manual
+- **Roof-support probabilities by soil classification** for the ability of the enlarging pipe to stay open, and **crack-filling probabilities by
+ embankment type** for the chance that upstream material fills the pipe
+- **Flow-limitation probabilities by upstream element** for the chance that a cutoff wall or upstream facing restricts the flow through the
+ flaw
+- **Filter evaluation** for the probability that erosion continues past a filter intersecting the failure pathway, applied through the shared
+ continuation method documented in the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual and drawing on the
+ [Filter Evaluation (Continuation)](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/filter-evaluation-continuation/v1.0/general-overview)
+ toolbox methods
+
+## Comparison with Detailed Models
+
+The detailed counterparts of the screening models are the concentrated leak erosion toolbox methods and the internal-erosion probability methods
+of Fell et al. (2024) applied in full. The Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation manual covers four flaw
+geometries — a cylindrical pipe, a horizontal crack, a vertical rectangular crack, and a vertical triangular crack (see its
+[General Overview](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/general-overview)) — of
+which the compaction models use the cylindrical pipe. summarizes the differences.
+
+
+
+## The Two Model Groups
+
+The eight models fall into two groups that share their flaw geometry and therefore their initiation treatment and their pathway rules
+():
+
+- **Crest-crack models** — cross-valley differential settlement, differential settlement adjacent to a wall or cliff, desiccation cracking, and
+ frost cracking. The flaw is a transverse crack open at the crest and extending down to a bottom-of-crack elevation. Every node is
+ deterministic except continuation, which the shared continuation method may evaluate by Monte Carlo simulation when a filter intercepts the
+ pathway (its route through the USCS classes of the base and filter soils samples their gradation parameters).
+- **Compaction models** — poor compaction within the core, adjacent to a conduit, adjacent to a wall or cliff, and along the foundation or
+ abutment contact. The flaw is a zone of poorly compacted soil at a fixed base-of-flaw elevation, idealized for initiation as a cylindrical pipe.
+ Initiation is evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation, and continuation may be as well, by the same continuation route as the crest-crack models;
+ every other node is deterministic.
+
+
+
+The flaw elevation is the one flaw quantity every downstream node uses: it sets where initiation can begin, where the failure pathway runs, and
+which filter and upstream elements the pathway meets. [Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx#flaw-elevation) documents how each model
+resolves it.
+
+## Relationship to Toolbox Models
+
+The compaction models use the same cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis as the standalone Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox. They
+differ mainly in what they supply to it: the embankment section and flaw elevation come from the screening inputs, and the critical shear stress and
+initial pipe diameter default to screening ranges that the user may replace. [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation)
+documents each supplied quantity and its basis. The crest-crack models use no toolbox method for initiation. All eight models hand the continuation node to the
+shared continuation method whenever a filter intersects the failure pathway
+(see [Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx#node-3-continuation)).
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0a8c572d6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,312 @@
+---
+title: Common Input Parameters
+---
+
+import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference';
+import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical';
+
+
+
+# Common Input Parameters
+
+This chapter documents the inputs that the CLE screening models share. Each model also takes the mechanism-specific flaw inputs documented in its
+own manual — compaction categories, settlement and geometry measures, conduit and wall descriptions, climate and surface-cover selections, and the
+observation that overrides its flaw probability. The shared inputs fall into seven groups: hydraulic loading, the units and datum convention, the
+embankment description, the failure-pathway inputs, the upstream seepage-limiting elements, the initiation material inputs of the compaction models,
+and the intervention and breach probabilities. Each group gives the short facts for its quantities in a table, followed by a description of each
+input and, for selections, a list of the available choices and what each implies. Where an input applies to only one of the two model groups
+(see [The Two Model Groups](./02-model-overview.mdx#the-two-model-groups)), the description says so.
+
+Several initiation inputs of the compaction models are statistical distributions that characterize uncertainty in a physical quantity. A
+distribution input may take any of five forms:
+
+- **Deterministic** — a single value.
+- **Uniform** — a low and a high bound.
+- **Normal** — a mean and a standard deviation.
+- **Triangular** — a low, a most likely (mode), and a high value.
+- **PERT** — a low, a most likely (mode), and a high value.
+
+Any distribution may also carry a lower limit, an upper limit, or both; a sampled value beyond a limit is set to that limit (the sample is clipped; the distribution is not
+renormalized between the limits, and no other treatment of the limits is offered). Every value a distribution can produce
+must be positive, so a normal distribution needs a positive lower limit. The Monte Carlo initiation analysis described in
+[Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation) samples these distributions.
+
+## Hydraulic Loading
+
+The hydraulic loading is defined by a headwater series and an optional companion tailwater series
+().
+
+t'],
+ ['elevation', 'elevation'],
+ ['At least two distinct finite values', 'Empty, or one entry per headwater value'],
+ ['Required', 'No tailwater'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+- **Headwater elevation series** — the pool levels at which the event tree is evaluated. The model evaluates every supplied headwater value and
+ additional pool levels distributed between them (see [Event Tree](./04-event-tree.mdx#headwater-grid)). The series need not be sorted; repeated
+ values are merged and evaluated once, keeping the tailwater of the first listed pair for that headwater value, and at least two distinct pool
+ levels must remain.
+- **Tailwater elevation series** — the tailwater paired with each headwater value. The series may be left empty when there is no tailwater at any
+ stage, and any individual entry may be left blank where there is no tailwater at that stage. Tailwater enters only the compaction models, where it
+ reduces the net head across the flaw (see [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation)); the crest-crack models
+ report it with the results but do not use it.
+
+## Units and Datum
+
+All elevations — headwater, tailwater, crest, flaw, filter, and wall elevations, and the slope-segment elevations — are on one common datum, and
+every length is in the same unit as the elevations. Two quantities carry fixed units regardless of the length unit: the critical shear stress in
+pounds per square foot and the initial pipe diameter in millimeters. The hydraulic gradient that the initiation analysis forms from the elevations
+and the seepage path length is dimensionless, so the initiation result does not depend on the length unit chosen.
+
+The cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis of the compaction models accepts only positive elevations for the base of the flaw and for the top of the
+embankment section it uses (the crest for the shell section, or the core top), and rejects zero or negative values. The datum chosen for a
+compaction model must therefore place the embankment above zero elevation. The crest-crack models carry no such restriction.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-01 — Applicability]
+State the length unit the CLE family is intended to be used in. Several mechanism-specific relationships carry dimensional values with no unit
+conversion — for example the tabulated crest-crack depths of the desiccation and frost-cracking models are in feet, and the compaction models band
+the flaw base width at fixed numerical thresholds — and only the cross-valley settlement model converts its crack-depth relationship between feet
+and meters. The shear stress relationship also uses the unit weight of water in pounds per cubic foot.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): the family is intended for US customary units (elevations and lengths in feet); a user working in SI units should convert
+before running any model other than the cross-valley settlement model. Confirm or replace, and state whether this belongs here or in each model's
+manual.
+:::
+
+## Embankment Description
+
+Every model takes the crest elevation and the embankment type (). The compaction models
+also describe the embankment cross-section with slope-segment tables, from which they derive the seepage path length through the flaw and, where
+a model scores it, the base width and height of the embankment section.
+
+c',
+ '—',
+ 'Wt,s',
+ 'zb,ks, mks',
+ 'zt,c, Wt,c',
+ 'zb,kc, mkc',
+ ],
+ ['elevation', 'selection', 'length', 'elevation; horizontal per vertical', 'elevation; length', 'elevation; horizontal per vertical'],
+ [
+ 'Finite; > 0 for the compaction models',
+ 'One of three types',
+ '> 0',
+ 'At least one segment per face',
+ 'Elevation > 0; width > 0',
+ 'At least one segment per face',
+ ],
+ ['Required', 'Required', 'Required', 'Required', 'Omitted', 'Omitted'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+- **Crest elevation** — the top of the embankment. The crest-crack models measure the crack depth down from it; the compaction models use it as
+ the top of the shell and, where a model applies the normal-pool heuristic, as the top of dam (see
+ [Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx#flaw-elevation)).
+- **Embankment type** — the cross-section archetype that sets the crack-filling probability of Node 5 (see
+ [Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx#node-5-progression--no-crack-filling)). The choices follow
+ Fell et al. (2024) :
+ - **Homogeneous earthfill** — a single earthfill zone.
+ - **Zoned earthfill** — an earthfill dam with more than one earthfill zone.
+ - **Central-core earth and rockfill** — an earth core flanked by rockfill shells.
+- **Shell top width and face segments** — the outer embankment section. Each face, upstream and downstream, is a list of segments ordered from the
+ crest downward; the top width is $W_{t,s}$, and segment $k$ is described by the elevation of its bottom $z_{b,k}^{s}$ and its slope $m_k^{s}$,
+ expressed as horizontal distance per unit of vertical rise. The lowest segment bottom on either face is the base of the section.
+- **Core top elevation, top width, and face segments** — an optional inner section, described the same way by its top elevation $z_{t,c}$, its top
+ width $W_{t,c}$, and its segments $z_{b,k}^{c}$ and $m_k^{c}$. When a core section is supplied it
+ must be complete, and it replaces the shell for every purpose the section serves — the seepage path length of initiation and any base width and
+ height the flaw assessment scores — whatever the embankment type. When it is omitted, the shell section is used. The later chapters write
+ $z_t$ and $W_t$ for the top elevation and top width of the section used by the model: $z_{t,c}$ and $W_{t,c}$ for the core, or the crest
+ $z_c$ and $W_{t,s}$ for the shell. A low-permeability core flanked
+ by free-draining shells carries the head loss across the core alone, which is why the core section, when supplied, governs
+ (see [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#seepage-path-length)).
+
+## Failure-Pathway Inputs
+
+The failure-pathway inputs describe what the seepage path through the flaw meets on its way downstream: whether a filter intersects it, and which
+soils must hold a roof over the enlarging pipe. The two model groups take them in different forms because their flaws differ — a crest crack spans
+a range of elevations, while a compaction flaw sits at one elevation
+(see [Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx)). Each soil is identified by its class in the Unified Soil
+Classification System (USCS).
+
+tf', '—', '—', '—', '—', '—'],
+ ['elevation', 'USCS classes', 'USCS classes', 'selection', 'USCS classes', 'filter and base soils'],
+ [
+ 'Finite',
+ 'At least one, unless the filter top reaches the crest',
+ 'At least one when a filter is present',
+ 'Present or absent',
+ 'At least one',
+ 'Required when a filter is present',
+ ],
+ ['No filter', 'Required', 'Omitted', 'Absent', 'Required', 'Omitted'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+- **Top-of-filter elevation** (crest-crack models) — the top of the first drain or filter zone the failure pathway meets. Leaving it blank states
+ that no filter intersects the pathway. When it is supplied, the continuation inputs and the below-filter roof materials are required; when it is
+ blank, both must be omitted. A filter caps the pathway when its top reaches the crest and no full-pathway roof materials are given: the
+ below-filter pathway then governs at every pool. When full-pathway materials are supplied, pools above the filter's top are evaluated on the
+ full pathway even if the filter reaches the crest.
+- **Full-pathway roof materials** (crest-crack models) — the soil classifications of every non-filter material along the whole failure pathway,
+ from the upstream face to the downstream face. They govern roof support whenever the pool is above the filter's top, and at every pool when no
+ filter is present. The list may be empty only when the filter's top reaches the crest.
+- **Below-filter roof materials** (crest-crack models) — the soil classifications of the non-filter materials on the pathway from the upstream face
+ to the first intersecting filter, taken at the bottom-of-crack elevation. They govern roof support whenever the pool is at or below the filter's
+ top.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-15 — Definition]
+The elevation, or range of elevations, at which the full-pathway roof materials are to be taken is not stated. The below-filter materials are taken
+at the bottom-of-crack elevation; the full-pathway materials are described only as every non-filter material from the upstream face to the
+downstream face. State the elevation or elevation range the user should cut the section at when listing them (for example, the bottom of the
+crack, the top of the filter, or the whole depth of the crack above the filter's top).
+:::
+
+- **Filter presence** (compaction models) — whether a filter intersects the failure pathway at the flaw elevation (for example, a diaphragm filter
+ around a conduit, or a filter zone against a wall or along the foundation contact). The core compaction model expresses this by whether
+ continuation inputs are supplied.
+- **Embankment materials** (compaction models) — the soil classifications of the materials the pipe passes through, which govern roof support at
+ every pool.
+- **Continuation inputs** — the filter description and the base soils upstream of it, evaluated by the shared continuation method documented in
+ the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual. They are required when a filter is present and used only then. The
+ crest-crack models reject them when no top-of-filter elevation is given; the conduit, wall or cliff, and foundation or abutment compaction models
+ ignore them when no filter is stated; and in the core compaction model, supplying them is what states that a filter is present.
+
+Each soil classification is one of the fifteen USCS classes listed with their roof-support probabilities in
+[Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx#node-4-progression--roof-support).
+
+## Upstream Seepage-Limiting Elements
+
+Every model except the conduit compaction model takes the upstream seepage-limiting elements present and, when one of them is a wall, the
+elevation of the wall's top (). The conduit compaction model carries no flow-limitation
+node input; its Node 6 is fixed at 1.0
+(see [Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx#node-6-progression--no-flow-limitation)).
+
+tw'],
+ ['selections', 'elevation'],
+ ['Any number of the six element types', 'Finite; only when a wall is present'],
+ ['None', 'Wall reaches the crest'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+- **Upstream elements present** — any combination of the following, following Fell et al. (2024) . When more
+ than one is present, the most effective governs:
+ - **Upstream facing element** — any upstream facing, such as a concrete slab, soil-cement wave protection, a geomembrane, or an asphalt lining.
+ This is the one element that is not a wall.
+ - **Sheet pile wall**
+ - **Modern cutoff wall**
+ - **Non-cementitious wall**
+ - **Soil-cement-bentonite wall**
+ - **Column wall** — jet-grouted or soil-mixed column construction.
+- **Top-of-wall elevation** — the top of the cutoff or seepage-barrier wall. Leaving it blank states that the wall reaches the crest, or that no wall
+ is present. It may be supplied only when a wall is among the elements present. How it gates the walls differs between the two groups (see
+ [Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx#node-6-progression--no-flow-limitation)).
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-02 — Definition]
+The wall categories "modern cutoff wall" and "non-cementitious wall" are used without a definition. State what each covers (construction type,
+era, or material) so the user can select between them and the soil-cement-bentonite and column-wall categories, or cite the table in Fell et al.
+(2024) that defines them.
+:::
+
+## Initiation Material Inputs
+
+The compaction models take the classification of the flaw material and three optional overrides of the initiation analysis
+(). The crest-crack models take none of these inputs.
+
+c', 'D', 'L'],
+ ['USCS class', 'lb/ft²', 'mm', 'length'],
+ ['One of nine classes', 'Positive distribution', 'Positive distribution', '> 0'],
+ ['Required', 'Range by soil class', 'Range by model', 'Derived from the section'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+- **Core soil classification** — the soil in which the flaw would erode. It selects the default critical shear stress range
+ (see [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#critical-shear-stress)). The clean and nearly clean sands and gravels — SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW,
+ and GP, the classes with less than 12 percent fines — are not accepted: the compaction mechanisms are not modeled in these soils. The silty
+ classes SM, GM, and ML are accepted, although they too can be non-plastic.
+- **Critical shear stress** — the hydraulic shear stress at which erosion of the flaw walls begins. Left blank, it defaults to a triangular
+ distribution over the range for the core soil classification. A site-specific distribution — for example from erodibility testing — replaces the
+ default.
+- **Initial pipe diameter** — the diameter of the idealized cylindrical pipe through the poorly compacted zone. Left blank, it defaults to the
+ model's triangular range (see [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#initial-pipe-diameter)). A site-specific distribution replaces the default.
+- **Seepage path length** — the length of the pipe over which the net head is lost. Left blank, it is derived from the embankment section at the
+ flaw elevation (see [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#seepage-path-length)). Supplying a length overrides the derivation; it suits a sloping core,
+ a pipe that does not run perpendicular to the embankment centerline, or a surveyed path.
+
+## Intervention and Breach
+
+int', 'Pbr'],
+ ['—', '—'],
+ ['0 to 1', '0 to 1'],
+ ['1.0', '1.0'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+- **Probability of unsuccessful intervention** — the probability that detection and intervention fail to stop the developing erosion (Node 7).
+ The default of 1.0 takes no credit for intervention.
+- **Probability of breach** — the probability that the developing erosion leads to an uncontrolled release of the impounded water (Node 8). The
+ default of 1.0 treats breach as certain once the earlier nodes are reached.
+
+Both are single values applied at every pool level.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/04-event-tree.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/04-event-tree.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..3d93175b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/04-event-tree.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+---
+title: Event Tree
+---
+
+import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import Equation from '@site/src/components/Equation';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference';
+import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical';
+
+
+
+# Event Tree
+
+Every CLE screening model computes the system response probability at each headwater level by multiplying the probabilities of the same eight-node
+event tree. The tree follows the sequence of the concentrated leak erosion trees in the
+[Typical Event Tree Database](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/risk-calculations-suite/typical-event-tree-database/v1.5/Concentrated-Leak-Erosion)
+— flaw, initiation, continuation, progression, unsuccessful intervention, breach — but no database tree is presented here as the screening tree.
+The database trees compare with it as follows:
+
+- The [homogeneous-embankment](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/risk-calculations-suite/typical-event-tree-database/v1.5/Concentrated-Leak-Erosion#homogeneous-embankment)
+ tree carries progression as a single crack-stability node.
+- The [zoned-embankment](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/risk-calculations-suite/typical-event-tree-database/v1.5/Concentrated-Leak-Erosion#zoned-embankment)
+ tree splits the flaw between the core and the shell and adds two progression nodes, asking whether upstream zoning fails to limit flow into the
+ crack and whether it fails to heal the crack.
+- The [soil-rock interface](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/risk-calculations-suite/typical-event-tree-database/v1.5/Concentrated-Leak-Erosion#at-soil-rock-interface)
+ tree, the closest to a foundation or abutment contact flaw, splits the flaw into continuous rock defects and ineffective foundation treatment,
+ and carries progression as clogging and crack stability, with no crack-filling or flow-limitation node.
+- The [embedded-structure](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/risk-calculations-suite/typical-event-tree-database/v1.5/Concentrated-Leak-Erosion#along-embedded-structure)
+ tree, written for a crack along a conduit, carries the same eight nodes as the screening tree, with flow limitation before crack filling.
+
+The screening tree has one flaw node and always carries three progression nodes — roof support (the crack-stability question), crack filling,
+and flow limitation — each evaluated from a table of Fell et al. (2024) . Because the SRP is a product of the
+node probabilities, the order of the progression nodes does not affect the result.
+
+## Node Summary
+
+ summarizes the eight nodes and how each model group populates them. The sections that
+follow state the engineering question each node answers and where it is documented in full.
+
+
+
+## Pool Dependence
+
+The nodes that vary with pool level differ between the two groups, because the flaws sit differently in the embankment:
+
+- **Crest-crack models** — the crack is open from the crest down to its bottom, so the pool can stand anywhere within it. Initiation, continuation,
+ roof support, and flow limitation are all evaluated at each pool level, because each depends on where the pool stands relative to the bottom of
+ the crack, the top of the filter, or the top of a wall. Flaw, crack filling, intervention, and breach are the same at every pool level.
+- **Compaction models** — the flaw is at one elevation, so the failure pathway, the filter it meets, the materials it passes through, and the
+ walls that reach it are fixed. Only initiation varies with pool level; the other seven nodes are the same at every pool level.
+
+## Headwater Grid
+
+The event tree is evaluated at every supplied headwater value and at additional pool levels distributed between successive supplied values, with
+the tailwater at each additional level interpolated linearly between the supplied pairs. An added level in an interval next to a blank tailwater
+entry carries no tailwater. The supplied values are sorted, and a repeated headwater
+value is evaluated once. The added levels give the system response curve enough resolution to locate the pool levels at which a node steps — the
+bottom of a crest crack, the top of a filter, or the top of a wall — between widely spaced supplied values; a pool level of particular interest is
+captured exactly by supplying it.
+
+## Node 1: Flaw
+
+*Question:* Does a continuous flaw of the model's mechanism — a transverse crack, or a continuous zone of poorly compacted soil — exist through the
+embankment?
+
+The probability $P_{flaw}$ is the result of the model's own flaw assessment, documented in its manual. The common scoring scheme most of the
+assessments use, the observation overrides, and the flaw elevation that each passes to the downstream nodes are documented in
+[Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx). The flaw is a condition of the embankment, so $P_{flaw}$ is the same at every pool level.
+
+## Node 2: Initiation
+
+*Question:* Is the hydraulic shear stress on the walls of the flaw large enough to initiate concentrated leak erosion?
+
+The initiation probability $P_{init}(h)$ is the headwater gate of the crest-crack models or the cylindrical-pipe Monte Carlo analysis of the
+compaction models, both documented in [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx).
+
+## Nodes 3 to 6: Continuation and Progression
+
+*Questions:* Does an unfiltered exit allow erosion to continue (Node 3)? Does the material over the enlarging pipe hold a roof (Node 4)? Is the
+pipe left unfilled by material from upstream (Node 5)? Does the flow through the pipe remain unrestricted by upstream elements (Node 6)?
+
+The probabilities $P_{cont}$, $P_{roof}$, $P_{nf}$, and $P_{nl}$ follow from the failure pathway — where it runs, which filter it meets, which
+materials it passes through, and which upstream elements reach it — as documented in
+[Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx).
+
+## Nodes 7 and 8: Unsuccessful Intervention and Breach
+
+*Questions:* Do detection and intervention fail (Node 7)? Does an uncontrolled release of impounded water occur (Node 8)?
+
+The final two nodes are the user-specified probabilities $P_{int}$ and $P_{br}$ documented in
+[Common Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#intervention-and-breach). Each is one value applied at every pool level. Both default to 1.0 —
+no successful intervention and certain breach — a conservative screening posture.
+
+## SRP Computation
+
+The system response probability at each pool level is the product of the eight node probabilities:
+
+
+
+where:
+
+> $P_{flaw}$ = probability of a continuous flaw (Node 1)
+> $P_{init}(h)$ = probability of initiation (Node 2)
+> $P_{cont}(h)$ = probability of continuation (Node 3)
+> $P_{roof}(h)$ = probability of roof support (Node 4)
+> $P_{nf}$ = probability of no crack filling (Node 5)
+> $P_{nl}(h)$ = probability of no flow limitation (Node 6)
+> $P_{int}$ = probability of unsuccessful intervention (Node 7)
+> $P_{br}$ = probability of breach (Node 8)
+
+For the compaction models, $P_{cont}$, $P_{roof}$, and $P_{nl}$ are the same at every pool level. Every model reports an SRP that is never
+exactly zero: where the product is zero — for example below the bottom of a crest crack, where initiation is zero — the SRP is reported as a
+negligibly small value instead, so that the curve can be carried into calculations that work with the logarithm of probability.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/05-flaw-conventions.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/05-flaw-conventions.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f859c088a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/05-flaw-conventions.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
+---
+title: Flaw Conventions
+---
+
+import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import Equation from '@site/src/components/Equation';
+import EquationReference from '@site/src/components/EquationReference';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference';
+import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical';
+
+
+
+# Flaw Conventions
+
+Node 1 of every CLE screening model is the probability $P_{flaw}$ that a continuous flaw of the model's mechanism exists through the embankment.
+Each model's own manual documents its factors, its category and banding tables, and its flaw-probability curve. This chapter documents the
+conventions those assessments share: the risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring scheme, the optional flaw-continuity stage, the observation
+overrides, the treatment of an inapplicable mechanism, and the flaw elevation each assessment passes to the downstream nodes.
+
+## Risk-Factor and Likelihood-Factor Scoring
+
+Seven of the eight models — every model except cross-valley differential settlement, which uses a settlement-based relationship documented in its
+own manual — estimate the flaw probability by the risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of Fell et al. (2024) .
+The scheme turns a small number of site factors, each judged on a common scale, into one flaw probability.
+
+### Factors
+
+Each model defines its own list of factors. Every factor $j$ carries two numbers:
+
+- **Risk factor** $RF_j$ — a small integer weight expressing how strongly the factor influences the likelihood of a flaw. Six of the seven
+ scoring models weight three factors 3, 2, and 1; the conduit compaction model weights four factors 3, 2, 2, and 2.
+- **Likelihood factor** $LF_j$ — the factor's score for the site, on a scale on which 1 is the least likely condition for a flaw and 4 the most
+ likely. A factor's likelihood factor comes either from a category the user selects (for example a compaction category or a climate) or from a
+ banding rule that places a measured quantity (for example a width-to-height ratio or a settlement ratio) into one of the bands. Some categories
+ — typically Unknown, or a condition between two bands — carry intermediate scores such as 2.5 or 3.5.
+
+### Weighted sum
+
+The scores combine into the weighted sum
+
+
+
+which rises as more of the factors, and the more heavily weighted factors, point toward a flaw.
+
+### Flaw probability from the weighted sum
+
+The weighted sum is converted to a flaw probability by a curve tabulated at a few points $(\Sigma_k, P_k)$ for each model. Between two tabulated
+points the logarithm of the probability is interpolated linearly in the weighted sum:
+
+
+
+so that equal steps in the weighted sum multiply the probability by equal factors. A weighted sum beyond either end of the tabulated range takes
+the probability at that end. In several models the lowest tabulated point carries a negligibly small probability, so that the probability falls
+steeply toward the low end of the tabulated range.
+
+Two further rules can force the raw flaw probability $P_{raw}$ to zero before the curve is consulted:
+
+- **Incompatible-condition factors** — a factor may be marked as one whose least likely score (a likelihood factor of exactly 1) describes a
+ condition physically incompatible with a continuous flaw. When any such factor scores 1, the flaw probability is zero whatever the other factors
+ score. The wall or cliff settlement model marks two of its geometric factors this way, and the foundation or abutment compaction model marks its
+ foundation-preparation factor.
+- **Lower threshold** — a model may set a weighted sum below which the flaw probability is zero. The desiccation and frost-cracking models use a
+ threshold of 13: a weighted sum below 13 gives a zero flaw probability, while a sum of exactly 13 takes the first tabulated value.
+
+A flaw probability forced to zero by either rule leaves the SRP at the negligible value described in
+[Event Tree](./04-event-tree.mdx#srp-computation), unless an observation override applies: in the desiccation and frost-cracking models a reported
+observation sets the flaw probability to 1.0 even when the weighted sum is below the threshold of 13 (see
+[Observation Overrides](#observation-overrides)). Only an inapplicable mechanism sets the override aside
+(see [Inapplicable Mechanism](#inapplicable-mechanism)).
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-03 — Engineering Basis]
+The conversion of the weighted sum to a flaw probability by interpolating the logarithm of the probability linearly between tabulated points
+(), holding the end value beyond the tabulated range, and — in several models —
+anchoring the lowest tabulated point at a negligibly small probability, requires an engineering basis. State whether Fell et al. (2024) presents
+the weighted-sum-to-probability relationships as curves to be interpolated in this way (and cite the figure or table), or provide the
+engineering-judgment attribution.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): the tabulated probabilities span several orders of magnitude, so interpolation in the logarithm of probability is the
+natural reading of a relationship plotted on a logarithmic probability axis; the negligible anchor reproduces a relationship that falls toward
+zero at the lowest attainable score. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+## Flaw-Continuity Stage
+
+Three compaction models — poor compaction within the core, adjacent to a wall or cliff, and along the foundation or abutment — apply a second
+stage after the scoring. The raw flaw probability is multiplied by a flaw-continuity probability $P_{cf}$, interpolated in the same log-linear
+manner from the likelihood factor of the model's compaction factor:
+
+
+
+where $LF_{comp}$ is the likelihood factor of the core-compaction category (core compaction), of the wall-fill compaction category (wall or cliff
+compaction), or of the contact-zone compaction method (foundation or abutment compaction). The three models share the flaw-continuity curve of
+.
+
+-4', '1 × 10-3', '1 × 10-1'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+A fractional compaction score, such as the 3.5 assigned to an Unknown core-compaction category, is interpolated between the tabulated points. The
+other four scoring models (wall or cliff settlement, conduit compaction, desiccation, and frost cracking) use the scored probability directly:
+$P_{flaw} = P_{raw}(\Sigma)$.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-04 — Engineering Basis]
+The flaw-continuity stage and its curve (: likelihood factor 1, 2, 3, 4 →
+negligible, 1 × 10-4, 1 × 10-3, 1 × 10-1) require an engineering basis and a definition. State what the
+flaw-continuity probability represents physically (for example, the probability that a poorly compacted zone is continuous across the full
+width of the embankment, given that it exists) and cite its source, or provide the engineering-judgment attribution. Confirm also that one curve
+is intended for all three models, keyed to a different compaction factor in each.
+:::
+
+## Observation Overrides
+
+Most models accept an observation that demonstrates the flaw directly. When the observation is reported, the flaw probability is set to 1.0 whatever
+the factors score; in the three compaction models with an override, the factor selections also become optional. The observations are:
+
+- **Cross-valley differential settlement** — continuous transverse cracking observed.
+- **Desiccation cracking and frost cracking** — transverse cracking observed and judged continuous.
+- **Poor compaction within the core** — embankment leakage or wet spots observed. The observed elevation of the leakage or wet spots also becomes
+ the flaw elevation (see [Flaw Elevation](#flaw-elevation)).
+- **Poor compaction adjacent to a conduit** — leakage observed adjacent to the conduit. The flaw elevation is unchanged.
+- **Poor compaction adjacent to a wall or cliff** — leakage observed adjacent to the wall. The flaw elevation is unchanged.
+
+The wall or cliff settlement and the foundation or abutment compaction models have no observation override. In the foundation or abutment
+compaction model, a well-prepared foundation (a foundation-preparation likelihood factor of 1) instead forces the flaw probability to zero, as
+described under [incompatible-condition factors](#flaw-probability-from-the-weighted-sum).
+
+The override sets only Node 1. Every downstream node is evaluated as usual, so an observed flaw still needs the pool to reach it, an unfiltered
+exit, and the progression conditions before it contributes to the SRP.
+
+## Inapplicable Mechanism
+
+The desiccation and frost-cracking models score the soils the crest crack would pass through. When every listed crest soil is one in which the
+mechanism cannot occur (one of the clean or nearly clean sands and gravels SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP, the classes with less than
+12 percent fines), the mechanism does not apply: no crack forms, the flaw probability is negligible, the observation
+override is not consulted, and initiation is zero at every pool level (see [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate)).
+The soil sets are documented in those models' manuals.
+
+## Flaw Elevation
+
+Each flaw assessment passes one elevation to the downstream nodes along with the flaw probability. It fixes where erosion can begin, where the
+failure pathway runs, and which filter and upstream walls the pathway meets.
+
+### Crest-crack models: bottom of the crack
+
+The flaw of a crest-crack model is a transverse crack open at the crest. The flaw assessment estimates the crack depth $d_c$ — from the settlement
+and geometry of the mechanism, or from tabulated depths by climate and soil — and the bottom of the crack is
+
+
+
+where $z_c$ is the crest elevation. Water can enter the crack only when the pool rises above $z_{bc}$, which is the initiation gate of
+[Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate). When an inapplicable mechanism produces no crack, the crack depth is zero and
+$z_{bc}$ equals the crest elevation.
+
+### Compaction models: base of the flaw
+
+The flaw of a compaction model is idealized as a cylindrical pipe whose invert is the base-of-flaw elevation $z_f$. The four models resolve it in
+three ways:
+
+- **Normal-pool heuristic** — for poor compaction within the core, and for poor compaction along an abutment contact, the base of the flaw is
+ placed one third of the way from the normal pool elevation $z_{np}$ to the crest:
+
+
+
+ The crest must be above the normal pool. For the core model, an observation of leakage or wet spots replaces this with the observed elevation.
+- **Direct input** — for poor compaction adjacent to a conduit, the base of the flaw is the bottom-of-conduit elevation; for poor compaction along
+ a foundation contact, it is the embankment–foundation contact elevation.
+- **Derived from the wall height** — for poor compaction adjacent to a wall or cliff, the base of the flaw is the crest elevation less the wall or
+ cliff height $h_w$, $z_f = z_c - h_w$. The model also requires it to lie at or above the lowest segment bottom of the shell section.
+
+In all four models, the base of the flaw may not lie above the top of the embankment section used for initiation (the core section when one is
+supplied, otherwise the shell), nor below the lowest segment bottom of either face of that section, and it must be a positive elevation (see
+[Units and Datum](./03-input-parameters.mdx#units-and-datum)).
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-05 — Engineering Basis]
+The normal-pool heuristic of — placing the base of a core or abutment compaction
+flaw one third of the way from the normal pool to the crest — requires an engineering basis. Provide the literature source or the
+engineering-judgment attribution to state here, including why the normal pool and not the base of the embankment is the lower reference.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): a screening convention that places the flaw within the band of pools the embankment experiences, so that initiation is
+evaluated above normal pool where loading is frequent. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+### Section geometry used in scoring
+
+Where a compaction model scores the geometry of the embankment section — the core compaction and the foundation or abutment compaction models band
+the base width $W$ and the width-to-height ratio $W/H_s$ — the two dimensions come from the section used by the model (the core section when
+supplied, otherwise the shell; see [Common Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#embankment-description)):
+
+
+
+where $H_s$ is the height of the section; $z_t$ and $W_t$ are its top elevation and top width — the core top $z_{t,c}$ and core top width
+$W_{t,c}$ for the core section, or the crest $z_c$ and shell top width $W_{t,s}$ for the shell; $z_{base}$ is the lowest segment bottom on
+either face; and $S_{us}$ and $S_{ds}$ are the horizontal spans of the upstream and downstream faces from the top down to $z_{base}$, each the sum over its segments of the
+vertical extent times the segment slope. Both models accept a user-supplied base width and height in place of the derived values; the supplied
+values replace them in the scoring only, while the initiation analysis keeps the section geometry.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/06-initiation.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/06-initiation.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0f93595ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/06-initiation.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+---
+title: Initiation
+---
+
+import Equation from '@site/src/components/Equation';
+import EquationReference from '@site/src/components/EquationReference';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference';
+import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical';
+
+
+
+# Initiation
+
+Node 2 of every CLE screening model asks whether the hydraulic shear stress exerted on the walls of the flaw by the water flowing through it is
+large enough to begin eroding them. The two model groups answer it differently. The crest-crack models apply a headwater gate at the bottom of the
+open crack. The compaction models hand the question to the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation
+toolbox, evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation over the soil's critical shear stress and the initial pipe diameter.
+
+## Crest-Crack Models: Headwater Gate
+
+**Models:** cross-valley differential settlement, settlement adjacent to a wall or cliff, desiccation cracking, and frost cracking.
+
+The flaw is a transverse crack open from the crest down to the bottom-of-crack elevation $z_{bc}$
+(see [Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx#crest-crack-models-bottom-of-the-crack)). Water enters the crack only once the pool rises above
+its bottom, and once it does, initiation is taken as certain:
+
+
+
+The gate turns on strictly above the bottom of the crack: at a pool exactly at $z_{bc}$, initiation is zero. No shear stress is computed, no
+cylindrical-pipe analysis is performed, and tailwater plays no part. In the desiccation and frost-cracking models, an inapplicable mechanism (see
+[Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx#inapplicable-mechanism)) holds initiation at zero at every pool level.
+
+The gate makes the crack depth the controlling quantity of the crest-crack models' initiation: the deeper the crack, the lower the pool at which
+the SRP steps from negligible to its full value. Above $z_{bc}$, the SRP of a crest-crack model varies with pool level only through the
+continuation, roof-support, and flow-limitation nodes (see [Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx)).
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-06 — Engineering Basis]
+The initiation probability of 1.0 applied once the pool rises above the bottom of an open crest crack
+() requires an engineering basis to state here. The model records two different
+attributions for it: one describes it as a conservative screening-level convention that is not an explicit finding of Pierson (2023), while
+others attribute the certain initiation of a transverse crest crack to Pierson (2023). Resolve which is intended. If Pierson (2023) is to be
+cited, provide its full bibliographic details (authors, title, publisher or journal, and report number) so that it can be added to the
+bibliography.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): an open transverse crack at the crest is wide enough that the shear stress of any flow through it exceeds the critical
+shear stress of the crack walls, so initiation is taken as certain once water can enter the crack — a conservative screening posture under which a
+site needing a lower value would adjust the SRP. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+## Delegated Method: Cylindrical Pipe Initiation
+
+**Node served:** Node 2 (Initiation) of the compaction models — poor compaction within the core, adjacent to a conduit, adjacent to a wall or
+cliff, and along the foundation or abutment.
+
+**Question answered:** At each pool level, does the flow through a pipe of initial diameter $D$ at the base of the flaw exert a hydraulic shear
+stress $\tau$ on the pipe wall that exceeds the critical shear stress $\tau_c$ of the soil? A poorly compacted zone is idealized as such a pipe,
+and the cylindrical-pipe analysis compares the two stresses over the uncertainty in $\tau_c$ and $D$. The theory is in the
+[Cylindrical Pipe](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/cylindrical-pipe) chapter
+of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation manual; this section documents what the screening models supply to it, what they take from it, and
+each screening-level choice.
+
+### Governing relationships
+
+The pipe invert is the base-of-flaw elevation $z_f$ resolved by the flaw assessment
+(see [Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx#compaction-models-base-of-the-flaw)). At each pool level $h$ with tailwater $h_t$, the upstream
+and downstream heads above the invert are each limited to be no less than zero:
+
+
+
+where $L$ is the seepage path length and $i$ the average hydraulic gradient along the pipe. A pool at or below the invert gives no flow and no
+initiation; a tailwater below the invert, or no tailwater, gives no submergence. The hydraulic shear stress on the wall of a cylindrical pipe
+carrying this gradient is, as derived in the toolbox manual's
+[Hydraulic Shear Stress](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/cylindrical-pipe#hydraulic-shear-stress)
+section,
+
+
+
+with $\gamma_w$ the unit weight of water (62.4 lb/ft³) and $D$ converted from millimeters to feet. Erosion initiates in a realization when
+$\tau > \tau_c$. The initiation probability at each pool level is the fraction of Monte Carlo realizations in which it does, as in the toolbox
+manual's
+[Likelihood of Initiation](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/cylindrical-pipe#likelihood-of-initiation-of-concentrated-leak-erosion)
+section:
+
+
+
+where each of the $N$ realizations draws one critical shear stress $\tau_{c,n}$ and one initial pipe diameter $D_n$ and holds them at every pool
+level. Because the same draws are carried across pool levels, the initiation probability does not decrease wherever the gradient rises with pool
+level: it rises, or stays flat at 0, at 1, or at a plateau between them. It can fall only where a rising tailwater reduces the net head across the
+pipe faster than the pool raises it.
+
+### Seepage path length
+
+Unless the user supplies a seepage path length, the model measures the pipe as a horizontal line at the invert elevation across the embankment
+section — the core section when one is supplied, the shell section otherwise (see
+[Common Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#embankment-description)):
+
+
+
+where $W_t$ is the top width of the section ($W_{t,c}$ for the core, $W_{t,s}$ for the shell) and $S_{us}(z_f)$ and $S_{ds}(z_f)$ are the
+horizontal spans of the upstream and downstream faces from the top of the section down to the invert. Each span is the sum, over the face
+segments, of the vertical extent of each segment above the invert (only the part above it, for the segment the invert cuts) times the segment's
+slope. This is the measurement the toolbox manual prescribes in its
+[Core Geometry](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/cylindrical-pipe#core-geometry)
+and Hydraulic Shear Stress sections: across the embankment slopes for a homogeneous embankment, and across the impervious core for a zoned
+embankment whose outer zones are very permeable. As the manual recommends, a user-supplied length replaces the derivation for a sloping core or a
+pipe that does not run perpendicular to the embankment centerline; a surveyed path length may be supplied the same way. The length is the same at every pool level.
+
+### Critical shear stress
+
+Left blank, the critical shear stress is a triangular distribution whose low, most likely, and high values are taken from
+ for the core soil classification. All four compaction models share this table. The
+toolbox manual's
+[Critical Shear Stress and Initial Pipe Diameter](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/cylindrical-pipe#critical-shear-stress-and-initial-pipe-diameter)
+section directs the estimation of a site-specific critical shear stress to the
+[Erodibility Parameters](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/erodibility-parameters/v1.0/preface) toolbox; a site-specific
+distribution supplied by the user replaces the default.
+
+
+
+The six clean and nearly clean sand and gravel classes — SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP, the classes with less than 12 percent fines — have
+no entry: the compaction models do not accept them as the core soil classification. The silty classes SM, GM, and ML, which can also be
+non-plastic, are accepted.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-07 — Engineering Basis]
+The default critical shear stress ranges of require a literature source or an
+engineering-judgment attribution. Provide the full bibliographic details of the source table (for example, the erodibility data set or
+correlation the ranges are taken from) so that it can be added to the bibliography.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): the tabulated values are conversions of round values in pascals — 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, and 50 Pa — which suggests
+a source table published in SI units. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-08 — Decision]
+Two entries of do not follow the pascal conversion of the rest of the table: the low
+value for GM is 0.021 lb/ft² where 1 Pa is 0.02089 lb/ft², and the high value for GC is 0.418 lb/ft² where 20 Pa is 0.4177 lb/ft². State whether
+these two values are intended as printed or should match the converted values used elsewhere in the table. The difference does not change any
+result materially but determines what this table should state.
+:::
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-09 — Engineering Basis]
+The exclusion of the six clean and nearly clean sand and gravel classes (SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, GP) from all four compaction models requires an engineering basis to
+state here — why a poorly compacted zone in these soils is not modeled as a concentrated leak erosion flaw.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): a cohesionless soil cannot sustain an open pipe or crack, so a compaction flaw in it would collapse rather than carry a
+concentrated leak; such soils are addressed by other internal-erosion failure modes. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-10 — Engineering Basis]
+The choice of a triangular distribution over the tabulated low, most likely, and high values as the default critical shear stress distribution
+requires an engineering basis or an engineering-judgment attribution.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): the triangular form follows the probabilistic input of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox, which represents
+the critical shear stress and the initial pipe diameter by triangular distributions over their minimum, most likely, and maximum values. Confirm
+or replace.
+:::
+
+### Initial pipe diameter
+
+Left blank, the initial pipe diameter is a triangular distribution set by the model ().
+The toolbox manual's
+[Critical Shear Stress and Initial Pipe Diameter](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/cylindrical-pipe#critical-shear-stress-and-initial-pipe-diameter)
+section directs the estimation of an initial opening to the
+Concentrated Leak Erosion (Cracking)
+toolbox and, because the initial diameter is very difficult to predict, recommends sensitivity analysis; a site-specific distribution supplied by
+the user replaces the default.
+
+
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-11 — Engineering Basis]
+The default initial pipe diameter ranges of require an engineering basis, including
+why the conduit model's range is larger than the core model's, and why the wall or cliff model's range has its most likely value at its low
+value. Provide a literature source or the engineering-judgment attribution to state here.
+:::
+
+### Screening-level adjustments
+
+Relative to the toolbox method, the compaction models:
+
+1. **Use the cylindrical-pipe geometry only.** The horizontal, vertical rectangular, and vertical triangular crack geometries of the toolbox are
+ not offered; a poorly compacted zone is idealized as a pipe.
+2. **Always run the probabilistic analysis.** The toolbox's deterministic option, which compares the most likely values only, is not used, so the
+ initiation probability always reflects the uncertainty in the critical shear stress and the initial pipe diameter.
+3. **Supply default distributions** for the critical shear stress and the initial pipe diameter, which the user may replace.
+4. **Derive the seepage path length** from the screening section at the flaw elevation, which the user may replace.
+
+The toolbox's further results — the critical pipe diameter, the headwater level for initiation, and the steady flow through the pipe — do not
+enter the event tree.
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..76cd04e9b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
+---
+title: Failure Pathway and Progression
+---
+
+import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import Equation from '@site/src/components/Equation';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference';
+import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical';
+
+
+
+# Failure Pathway and Progression
+
+Nodes 3 through 6 of the CLE event tree depend on what the eroding flaw meets on its way through the embankment: whether a filter intercepts it,
+which soils must hold a roof over the enlarging pipe, whether material from upstream can fill it, and whether an upstream element restricts the
+flow into it. This chapter documents the failure-pathway conventions that decide those questions and how each of the four nodes is evaluated.
+
+## The Failure Pathway
+
+The failure pathway is the route the concentrated leak takes through the embankment, from the upstream face to the downstream face. Its form follows
+from the flaw:
+
+- **Crest-crack models** — the pathway runs along the transverse crack, which is open over a range of elevations from its bottom $z_{bc}$ up to the
+ crest. The first drain or filter zone the pathway meets defines the top-of-filter elevation $z_{tf}$. While the pool is at or below $z_{tf}$, the
+ water entering the crack reaches the filter: this is the **below-filter pathway**, from the upstream face to the filter, taken at the
+ bottom-of-crack elevation. Once the pool rises above $z_{tf}$, the water entering the upper part of the crack passes over the filter's top: this
+ is the **full pathway**, from the upstream face to the downstream face. A filter **caps the pathway** when its top reaches the crest and no
+ full-pathway materials are given: the below-filter pathway then governs at every pool level. If full-pathway materials are supplied, pools
+ above the filter's top are evaluated on the full pathway. With no filter on the pathway, the full pathway governs at every pool level.
+- **Compaction models** — the pathway runs through the embankment section at the base-of-flaw elevation $z_f$. The flaw, and so the pathway, is at
+ one elevation: whether a filter intercepts it, which materials it passes through, and which walls reach it are the same at every pool level.
+
+The user resolves the pathway against the embankment section and supplies the result — the top-of-filter elevation, the filter and base-soil
+description, and the material lists — as documented in [Common Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#failure-pathway-inputs).
+
+## Node 3: Continuation
+
+*Question:* Does an unfiltered seepage exit exist that allows erosion to continue?
+
+Where a filter intercepts the pathway, the probability that erosion continues past it, $P_{ce}$, is evaluated by the shared continuation method
+from the filter and base-soil description. The method, its alternative evaluation routes, and its basis are documented in the Continuation (Filter
+Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual; it draws on the toolbox methods of the
+[Filter Evaluation (Continuation)](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/filter-evaluation-continuation/v1.0/general-overview)
+manual. Where no filter intercepts the pathway, the exit is unfiltered and continuation is certain.
+
+**Crest-crack models.** Continuation follows the pathway that governs at each pool level:
+
+
+
+Above the top of a filter that does not cap the pathway, the water in the upper part of the crack passes over the filter and exits unfiltered, so
+continuation is certain there. A crest-crack SRP curve with a filter therefore steps where the pool crosses $z_{tf}$: continuation rises from
+$P_{ce}$ to 1.0, but roof support switches at the same level from the below-filter minimum to the full-pathway minimum, which can be much lower
+(for example 0.01 for a downstream rockfill shell classified as GP on the full pathway). The SRP steps up where $P_{ce}$ is smaller than the ratio of the
+full-pathway to the below-filter roof support, and steps down where it is larger (see
+[Node 4: Progression — Roof Support](#node-4-progression--roof-support)).
+
+**Compaction models.** Continuation is one value for every pool level: $P_{ce}$ when a filter intercepts the pathway at the flaw elevation, and
+1.0 when none does. The continuation method is not evaluated when no filter is present.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-12 — Engineering Basis]
+The crest-crack pathway convention requires an engineering basis to state here: (1) continuation and roof support share one gate at the top of the
+first filter the pathway meets, so that above that elevation erosion is taken to exit unfiltered over the filter's top with certain continuation;
+(2) the below-filter roof materials are taken at the bottom-of-crack elevation; and (3) a filter whose top reaches the crest, with no full-pathway
+materials given, caps the pathway at every pool level. Provide the literature source or the engineering-judgment attribution.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): a crest crack is open over its full depth, so a pool above the filter's top drives flow through the upper part of the
+crack over the filter, where nothing filters the exit; below the filter's top, all flow through the crack reaches the filter. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+## Node 4: Progression — Roof Support
+
+*Question:* Does a continuous stable roof form over the enlarging pipe, so that it stays open?
+
+Each soil classification on the pathway maps to a roof-support probability per ,
+following Fell et al. (2024) . Every material along the pathway must hold a roof for the pipe to progress, so
+the least capable material governs and the node takes the minimum across the listed materials:
+
+
+
+where $\mathcal{M}$ is the material set that applies:
+
+- **Crest-crack models** — the below-filter materials at pool levels at or below $z_{tf}$ (and at every pool level when the filter caps the
+ pathway), and the full-pathway materials above it (and at every pool level when no filter is present). Roof support can therefore change where
+ the pool crosses $z_{tf}$, in step with continuation.
+- **Compaction models** — the embankment materials the pipe passes through, at every pool level.
+
+
+
+## Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling
+
+*Question:* Does the enlarging pipe remain unfilled, rather than being filled and healed by material carried in from upstream?
+
+The probability $P_{nf}$ depends only on the embankment type, per , following Fell
+et al. (2024) . It is the same at every pool level for both groups.
+
+
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-13 — Definition]
+Confirm the physical meaning of the values in . The model's source table is described
+as giving the probability of crack filling, while the event-tree node multiplies the tabulated value directly as the probability of no crack
+filling. The two readings agree only for the central-core earth and rockfill value of 0.5; for the earthfill types, a tabulated 1.0 read as the
+probability of crack filling would mean certain healing. State which reading the source table supports, cite its table number in Fell et al.
+(2024).
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): the tabulated value is the probability that crack filling does not stop the erosion — an earthfill embankment has no
+upstream zone of material able to wash into and fill the pipe, so no credit is taken, while the upstream zone of a central-core earth and
+rockfill embankment is credited with a one-in-two chance of filling it. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+## Node 6: Progression — No Flow Limitation
+
+*Question:* Does the flow into the enlarging pipe remain unrestricted by upstream seepage-limiting elements?
+
+Each upstream element maps to a probability of no flow limitation per , following Fell
+et al. (2024) . When more than one element applies, the most effective one controls the flow, so the node takes
+the minimum across the applicable elements; with no applicable element, flow is not limited and $P_{nl} = 1.0$:
+
+
+
+
+
+### Walls that stop below the crest
+
+A wall limits flow only over its own height. When the user supplies the top-of-wall elevation $z_{tw}$, the walls apply only where the leak
+passes beneath their top, while the upstream facing element, which is not a wall, applies wherever it is present. The applicable set $\mathcal{E}$
+is therefore:
+
+- **Crest-crack models** — gated per pool level. At pool levels at or below $z_{tw}$ every listed element applies; above it the walls drop out
+ and only the upstream facing element remains, because the flow entering the crack above the wall's top passes over it.
+- **Compaction models** — gated once, against the flaw elevation. When $z_{tw} \ge z_f$ the wall reaches the flaw and every listed element applies;
+ when $z_{tw} < z_f$ the walls drop out and only the upstream facing element remains. Either way, one value applies at every pool level.
+
+With no top-of-wall elevation, the walls are taken to reach the crest and every listed element applies at every pool level.
+
+The conduit compaction model carries no flow-limitation input: it models no upstream element, and its Node 6 is fixed at 1.0.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-14 — Engineering Basis]
+The flow-limitation conventions require an engineering basis to state here: (1) the minimum across several upstream elements governs; (2) a wall
+stops limiting flow above its top — per pool level for a crest crack, and against the base of the flaw for a compaction flaw — while an upstream
+facing element applies at every pool level; and (3) the conduit compaction model takes no flow-limitation credit at all. Provide the literature
+source (including the table in Fell et al. (2024) that gives the values of
+) or the engineering-judgment attribution.
+:::
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/08-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/08-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..8e8907824
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/08-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+---
+title: Assumptions and Limitations
+---
+
+import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+
+
+
+# Assumptions and Limitations
+
+The CLE screening models apply deliberate simplifications relative to a detailed internal-erosion risk analysis. They reduce input requirements
+and are designed to avoid false negatives at the screening level. This chapter lists the assumptions the eight models share; each model's own
+manual lists the assumptions of its flaw assessment. Each assumption below states its engineering basis, its effect on results, and the conditions
+under which it may not hold. Where an engineering basis is still awaiting confirmation, the assumption cross-references the input marker at its
+primary location in this document.
+
+## Event Tree
+
+1. **The SRP is the product of the eight node probabilities.** Each node is the probability of its event given that every earlier node has
+ occurred (see [Event Tree](./04-event-tree.mdx#srp-computation)).
+ - *Engineering basis:* Event-tree convention for internal-erosion failure modes, following the node sequence of the concentrated leak erosion
+ trees of the Typical Event Tree Database and the progression conditions of Fell et al. (2024) .
+ - *Effect on results:* The SRP can be no larger than its smallest node, so a single low node — a filter, a cohesionless roof material, an
+ effective cutoff — can control the curve.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the nodes are strongly dependent in ways the conditional values do not capture, for example where the same soil
+ property controls both initiation and roof support; a detailed analysis then assesses the joint condition directly.
+2. **Intervention and breach are single values that apply at every pool level, defaulting to 1.0.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Screening design decision (engineering judgment): taking no credit for intervention and treating breach as certain is the
+ conservative screening posture, and site-specific values can be supplied.
+ - *Effect on results:* With the defaults, the SRP is the probability of reaching the end of the progression nodes.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where monitoring and response time, or breach resistance, vary strongly with pool level; a pool-dependent assessment
+ belongs in a detailed analysis.
+3. **The curve is resolved on a grid of pool levels.** The tree is evaluated at every supplied headwater value and at intermediate levels between
+ them (see [Event Tree](./04-event-tree.mdx#headwater-grid)).
+ - *Engineering basis:* Screening simplification (engineering judgment): the nodes that step with pool level — at the bottom of a crest crack, the
+ top of a filter, or the top of a wall — are located to within one grid interval.
+ - *Effect on results:* A step between two grid levels appears in the curve as a change across that interval rather than at its exact elevation.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the exact pool level of a step matters; supplying that pool level as a headwater value places a grid level on it.
+
+## Flaw
+
+4. **The flaw probability is the same at every pool level.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment: the existence of a flaw is a condition of the embankment, not of the loading.
+ - *Effect on results:* Pool dependence of the SRP comes entirely from initiation and, for the crest-crack models, from the pathway gates.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where cracking itself depends on pool level, such as hydraulic fracture under rising pool; that mechanism is outside
+ the family.
+5. **Qualitative site factors are converted to a flaw probability by risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring and a log-linear curve.** This applies
+ to every model except cross-valley differential settlement (see [Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring)).
+ - *Engineering basis:* Fell et al. (2024) for the scoring scheme; the interpolation form is requested at
+ marker IN-03 in [Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx#flaw-probability-from-the-weighted-sum).
+ - *Effect on results:* The flaw probability moves by roughly constant factors per step of the weighted sum, and takes the end value beyond the
+ tabulated range.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where site investigation supports a flaw probability more directly than the factor scores do; the risk team's
+ estimate then replaces the screening value.
+6. **Three compaction models multiply the scored probability by a flaw-continuity probability keyed to their compaction factor.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-04 in [Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx#flaw-continuity-stage).
+ - *Effect on results:* The best compaction rating (a likelihood factor of 1) reduces the flaw probability to negligible, and each step toward
+ poorer compaction above a likelihood factor of 2 raises it by one to two orders of magnitude. The compaction category enters the flaw
+ probability twice — through its weight in the weighted sum and again through the flaw-continuity probability — so the flaw probability is
+ especially sensitive to that selection.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where compaction records conflict with field performance, such as observed seepage through an embankment rated well
+ compacted; the observation override then applies.
+7. **An observed flaw has a flaw probability of 1.0.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment: an observation of leakage, wet spots, or continuous cracking demonstrates the flaw, so its
+ probability is not estimated from site factors.
+ - *Effect on results:* The SRP is governed entirely by the downstream nodes.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the observation has another explanation, such as surface cracking that is not continuous or seepage along a
+ different path; the override should be reserved for observations judged to demonstrate the modeled flaw.
+8. **The base of a core or abutment compaction flaw is placed one third of the way from the normal pool to the crest**, unless an observed leakage
+ elevation (core) replaces it.
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-05 in [Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx#compaction-models-base-of-the-flaw).
+ - *Effect on results:* Initiation cannot occur, and the SRP is negligible, at pool levels at or below this elevation, and walls are judged
+ against it. Filter presence is stated by the user, not compared with this elevation.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where construction records or performance locate the poorly compacted zone; an observed leakage elevation should then
+ be used where the model accepts one.
+
+## Initiation
+
+9. **Initiation in a crest crack is certain once the pool rises above the bottom of the crack, and zero at or below it.** Tailwater plays no part.
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-06 in [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate).
+ - *Effect on results:* The crack depth alone sets the pool level at which the crest-crack SRP rises from negligible; no shear stress analysis can
+ lower the initiation probability above that level (conservative).
+ - *When it may not hold:* For narrow cracks in highly erosion-resistant soils, or cracks that close or fill below the surface; a crack-geometry
+ initiation analysis then applies.
+10. **A poorly compacted zone is idealized as a cylindrical pipe of uncertain initial diameter at the base of the flaw.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* The cylindrical-pipe idealization of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox (see
+ [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation)); the basis of the default diameter ranges is requested at
+ marker IN-11 in [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#initial-pipe-diameter).
+ - *Effect on results:* The shear stress rises in proportion to the diameter, so the initial diameter range strongly shapes the initiation curve.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the flaw is better represented as a crack, such as a gap against a structure; the toolbox crack geometries then
+ apply.
+11. **The default critical shear stress is a triangular distribution over a range set by the soil classification.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see markers IN-07 and IN-10 in [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#critical-shear-stress).
+ - *Effect on results:* Soils of one classification share one erodibility range regardless of compaction, water content, or dispersivity.
+ - *When it may not hold:* For dispersive soils, soils whose erodibility differs markedly from their classification's range, or where erosion
+ testing is available; a site-specific distribution should then be supplied.
+12. **The compaction mechanisms are not modeled in clean or nearly clean sands and gravels** — the classes SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP,
+ with less than 12 percent fines.
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-09 in [Initiation](./06-initiation.mdx#critical-shear-stress).
+ - *Effect on results:* A core of SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, or GP cannot be analyzed by the compaction models. Silty soils (SM, GM, ML) are
+ analyzed even where they are non-plastic.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Not applicable within the family; other internal-erosion failure modes address such soils.
+13. **The seepage path is a horizontal line at the base of the flaw across the core section, or across the shell when no core is described.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* The pipe-length measurement of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox, which measures across the impervious core
+ of a zoned embankment with very permeable outer zones and across the embankment slopes of a homogeneous one.
+ - *Effect on results:* The whole net head is lost along the measured length; a shorter length gives a steeper gradient and a higher initiation
+ probability.
+ - *When it may not hold:* For sloping cores, flaws not perpendicular to the centerline, or outer zones that are not free draining; a supplied
+ seepage path length should then be used.
+14. **The critical shear stress and the initial pipe diameter are uncertain independently, and each realization holds its values at every pool
+ level.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* The probabilistic method of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox, which samples each from its own
+ distribution.
+ - *Effect on results:* The initiation curve never falls where the gradient rises with pool level (it is non-decreasing there).
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the two are correlated, for example where a more erodible soil also forms larger initial openings. Under such
+ positive dependence the ratio of diameter to critical shear stress has a wider spread, so the initiation curve rises over a wider range of
+ pool levels than the independent treatment shows.
+
+## Failure Pathway and Progression
+
+15. **On a crest crack, continuation and roof support share one gate at the top of the first filter the pathway meets.** Above that elevation
+ continuation is certain and the full-pathway materials govern roof support; at or below it the continuation method and the below-filter
+ materials apply; a filter reaching the crest with no full-pathway materials given applies at every pool level.
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-12 in [Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx#node-3-continuation).
+ - *Effect on results:* A crest-crack curve with a filter steps where the pool crosses the filter's top. It steps up when the continuation
+ probability $P_{ce}$ is smaller than the ratio of full-pathway to below-filter roof support, and down when it is larger (see
+ [Node 3: Continuation](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx#node-3-continuation)).
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where a filter's top varies along the crack, or a second filter lies further downstream on the full pathway; the
+ first filter's top is used throughout.
+16. **On a compaction flaw, the pathway, its filter, its materials, and the walls that reach it are fixed by the flaw elevation.** Continuation,
+ roof support, and flow limitation are each one value at every pool level.
+ - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment: the flaw is at one elevation, so what it meets does not change with the pool.
+ - *Effect on results:* Only initiation varies with pool level.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the poorly compacted zone extends over a range of elevations; the flaw elevation should then be chosen as the one
+ that governs.
+17. **Roof support is the minimum roof-support probability across the materials on the pathway.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Fell et al. (2024) for the probabilities by soil classification; engineering
+ judgment for the minimum, since every material along the pathway must hold a roof.
+ - *Effect on results:* One cohesionless material on the pathway reduces the SRP by up to two orders of magnitude.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the governing material occupies only a short, well-confined length of the pathway.
+18. **Crack filling depends only on the embankment type.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Fell et al. (2024) ; the meaning of the values is requested at marker IN-13 in
+ [Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx#node-5-progression--no-crack-filling).
+ - *Effect on results:* Only a central-core earth and rockfill embankment receives credit, which halves its SRP.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the gradation of the upstream zone is known to be able, or unable, to fill the pipe.
+19. **Flow limitation is the minimum across the applicable upstream elements, and a wall limits flow only below its top.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Fell et al. (2024) for the probabilities; the gating conventions are requested at
+ marker IN-14 in [Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx#walls-that-stop-below-the-crest).
+ - *Effect on results:* A modern cutoff wall that reaches the flaw reduces the SRP by three orders of magnitude; above its top, a crest-crack curve
+ loses that reduction.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where a wall is discontinuous, damaged, or does not span the flaw laterally.
+20. **The conduit compaction model takes no flow-limitation credit.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-14 in [Failure Pathway and Progression](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx#walls-that-stop-below-the-crest).
+ - *Effect on results:* An upstream cutoff or facing does not reduce the SRP of a conduit flaw (conservative).
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where an upstream element demonstrably limits flow into the zone around the conduit.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/09-output-and-interpretation.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/09-output-and-interpretation.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..7a5f7a679
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/09-output-and-interpretation.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+---
+title: Output and Interpretation
+---
+
+import Citation from '@site/src/components/Citation';
+import CitationFootnote from '@site/src/components/CitationFootnote';
+import EquationNoRef from '@site/src/components/EquationNoRef';
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+
+
+
+# Output and Interpretation
+
+Every CLE screening model reports the SRP at each evaluated pool level together with the probability of each of the eight nodes, so that the
+contribution of every node to the curve can be read directly. The results fall into three groups: values that do not depend on pool level, series
+evaluated at each pool level, and the supporting results of the flaw assessment and the initiation analysis. Each model's
+own manual describes its flaw-assessment results.
+
+## Pool-Independent Results
+
+- **Flaw probability** — Node 1, from the model's flaw assessment (see [Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx)); 1.0 when an observation
+ override applies.
+- **Crack-filling probability** — Node 5, the probability of no crack filling for the embankment type.
+- **Flow-limitation probability** — Node 6, the minimum across the applicable upstream elements, or 1.0 when none is listed:
+ - *Crest-crack models* — the value with every listed element applying, which governs at pool levels at or below the top of a wall.
+ - *Compaction models* — the value after the walls are gated against the flaw elevation, so the walls are excluded when the top of the wall
+ $z_{tw}$ is below the base of the flaw $z_f$. This is the value used at every pool level.
+ - *Conduit compaction model* — no flow-limitation result is reported; its node is fixed at 1.0.
+- **Roof-support probabilities** — for the crest-crack models, the minimum across the full-pathway materials and the minimum across the
+ below-filter materials, each reported only where that pathway exists (the full-pathway value is absent when the filter caps the pathway; the
+ below-filter value is absent when no filter is present). For the compaction models, the single roof-support probability across the embankment
+ materials.
+- **Continuation probability** (compaction models) — Node 3: the continuation method's result when a filter intercepts the pathway, otherwise
+ 1.0.
+
+## Pool-Dependent Series
+
+Every pool-dependent result is a series over the evaluated pool levels — every supplied headwater value and the additional levels distributed
+between them (see [Event Tree](./04-event-tree.mdx#headwater-grid)):
+
+- **Pool levels** — the headwater elevations at which the event tree is evaluated.
+- **Tailwater** — the tailwater at each pool level, interpolated between the supplied pairs (see
+ [Event Tree](./04-event-tree.mdx#headwater-grid)). Where there is no tailwater, the crest-crack models report the entry as blank, while the
+ compaction models report the pipe-invert elevation $z_f$, the level at which tailwater gives no submergence.
+- **Initiation probability** — Node 2 at each pool level.
+- **Continuation probability** (crest-crack models) — Node 3 at each pool level: the continuation method's result at or below the filter's top,
+ and 1.0 above it or where no filter is present.
+- **Roof-support probability** (crest-crack models) — Node 4 at each pool level: the below-filter or full-pathway value that governs there.
+- **Flow-limitation probability** — Node 6 at each pool level, after any wall has dropped out. For the compaction models it is the same at every
+ pool level; for the crest-crack models it changes where the pool crosses the top of a wall. The conduit compaction model reports no
+ flow-limitation series; its Node 6 is fixed at 1.0.
+- **Unsuccessful-intervention and breach probabilities** — Nodes 7 and 8, the user-specified values at every pool level.
+- **SRP** — the product of the eight nodes at each pool level: the system response curve.
+
+## Supporting Results
+
+- **Flaw assessment** — the factor scores, the weighted sum, the raw and final flaw probabilities, whether an override applied, and the flaw
+ elevation (the bottom of the crack, or the base of the flaw), as documented in each model's manual.
+- **Initiation analysis** (compaction models) — at each pool level, the upstream and downstream heads above the pipe invert, the hydraulic
+ gradient, and the mean and 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles of the hydraulic shear stress; and the seepage path length.
+
+## Interpreting the System Response Curve
+
+The SRP series is the system response curve — the conditional probability of breach by concentrated leak erosion through the modeled flaw as a
+function of pool level. Its shape differs between the two groups.
+
+**Crest-crack models.** The curve is negligible at and below the bottom of the crack. It steps up as soon as the pool rises above it, provided
+every other node is non-zero there: a negligible flaw probability (an inapplicable mechanism, or a factor or threshold forcing it to zero), or a
+user-supplied unsuccessful-intervention or breach probability of 0, keeps the curve negligible at every pool level. An observation override takes
+precedence over the threshold rule, so a reported observation restores a flaw probability of 1.0 (see
+[Flaw Conventions](./05-flaw-conventions.mdx#flaw-probability-from-the-weighted-sum)). Above that level the curve is piecewise
+constant: with initiation equal to 1.0, the SRP at each pool level is the product of the remaining nodes,
+
+
+
+with $P_{cont}$, $P_{roof}$, and $P_{nl}$ taking the values that govern at that pool level. Further steps occur where the pool crosses the top of
+a filter (continuation becomes certain and the full-pathway roof materials take over, so the curve can step up or down; see
+[Node 3: Continuation](./07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx#node-3-continuation)) and where it crosses the top of a wall (the wall's
+flow-limitation credit is lost). Each step location can be read from the node series.
+
+**Compaction models.** The curve is negligible at and below the base of the flaw and rises with pool level as the hydraulic gradient through the
+pipe grows, following the initiation probability. The other seven nodes are constant, so the curve approaches the product of those nodes as the
+initiation probability approaches 1.0. A rising tailwater that reduces the net head across the pipe can flatten or lower the curve over that range.
+
+## Reading the Node Breakdown
+
+Because the SRP is a product, the node with the lowest probability at a pool level limits the curve there, and the breakdown shows which it is.
+Typical readings:
+
+- **A low flaw probability** places the whole curve low; it reflects the factor scores, and the flaw assessment results show which factors drive
+ it.
+- **A filter on the pathway** lowers the curve by the continuation probability — on a crest crack only up to the filter's top.
+- **A cohesionless material on the pathway** lowers the curve by its roof-support probability, by up to two orders of magnitude.
+- **An effective upstream element** lowers the curve by its flow-limitation probability, but only where it applies.
+- **For the compaction models**, the pool level at which the curve begins to rise, and how fast it rises, are set by the critical shear stress and
+ initial pipe diameter. A curve that levels off below the product of the other nodes reflects realizations that do not initiate within the
+ evaluated pool range. Such realizations may never initiate at any physically possible pool, because the crest limits the largest gradient the
+ pipe can carry, so the plateau can be real. Extending the headwater series shows whether the curve rises further, but only up to the crest or
+ the maximum credible pool.
+
+## Checking the Result
+
+In the crest-crack models, the curve can be reproduced exactly from the reported node values, since initiation, roof support, crack filling, and
+flow limitation are deterministic. The continuation probability $P_{ce}$ itself may be a Monte Carlo estimate, when the continuation method
+evaluates the filter by its sampling route through the USCS classes of the base and filter soils. In the compaction models, the
+initiation probability at each pool level is a Monte Carlo point estimate, the fraction of realizations that initiate, and no confidence bounds
+are reported with it; small irregularities between neighboring pool levels can reflect sampling rather than the physics. The following checks
+apply to every result:
+
+- **Upper bound** — in the compaction models, the SRP at every pool level is no larger than the product of the seven nodes that do not vary with
+ pool level, and approaches it only as initiation approaches 1.0. In the crest-crack models, the SRP above the bottom of the crack equals the
+ product of the nodes that govern at that pool level.
+- **Step locations** — in the crest-crack models, steps of the curve can occur only at the bottom of the crack $z_{bc}$, the top of the filter
+ $z_{tf}$, and the top of a wall $z_{tw}$ (to within one interval of the headwater grid), and at a filter or wall top only where it lies above
+ $z_{bc}$. A filter or wall top at or below the bottom of the crack produces no visible step.
+- **Lower end** — the curve is negligible at and below the bottom of the crack $z_{bc}$ (crest-crack models) or the base of the flaw $z_f$
+ (compaction models).
+
+A curve that fails one of these checks can point to an input that does not describe the intended embankment, such as a flaw elevation, filter top,
+or wall top on a different datum from the headwater series.
+
+## Screening Results Relative to Detailed Analysis
+
+The CLE screening models are screening tools. Their results indicate whether a concentrated leak erosion mechanism warrants detailed analysis;
+they are not substitutes for a detailed assessment. The screening defaults — the critical shear stress and initial pipe diameter ranges, the
+flaw-elevation heuristics, the certain initiation of an open crest crack, and the tabulated progression probabilities — are chosen to avoid false
+negatives. Where a screening result is significant to a decision, the governing nodes should be re-examined with site-specific information, and the
+detailed toolbox methods, the methods of Fell et al. (2024) , and the judgment of the risk team should replace the screening values.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e45d379d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md
@@ -0,0 +1,249 @@
+# Input Needed — Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual (v1.0)
+
+Answer inline and return this file (or paste its contents into the conversation). Leave an
+Answer blank to keep that marker in place. Do not renumber — the IDs tie each entry to its
+admonition in the document.
+
+---
+
+## IN-01 — Applicability — `03-input-parameters.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The length unit the CLE family is intended to be used in. Several
+mechanism-specific relationships carry dimensional values with no unit conversion (the
+desiccation and frost-cracking crack depths are tabulated in feet; the compaction models band
+the flaw base width at fixed numerical thresholds), only the cross-valley settlement model
+converts its crack-depth relationship between feet and meters, and the shear stress
+relationship uses the unit weight of water in pounds per cubic foot.
+
+**Needed:** The intended unit system for the family, and whether the statement belongs in this
+manual or in each model's manual.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The family is intended for US customary units (elevations and
+lengths in feet); a user working in SI units converts before running any model other than the
+cross-valley settlement model.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-02 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The upstream-element categories "modern cutoff wall" and "non-cementitious
+wall", which are listed without a definition alongside the soil-cement-bentonite and column-wall
+categories.
+
+**Needed:** What each category covers (construction type, era, or material), or the table in
+Fell et al. (2024) that defines them.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-03 — Engineering Basis — `05-flaw-conventions.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The conversion of the risk-factor/likelihood-factor weighted sum to a flaw
+probability by interpolating the logarithm of probability linearly between tabulated points,
+holding the end value beyond the tabulated range, and (in several models) anchoring the lowest
+tabulated point at a negligibly small probability.
+
+**Needed:** Whether Fell et al. (2024) presents these relationships as curves to be
+interpolated this way (with the figure or table), or the engineering-judgment attribution.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The tabulated probabilities span several orders of magnitude, so
+interpolation in the logarithm of probability is the natural reading of a relationship plotted
+on a logarithmic probability axis; the negligible anchor reproduces a relationship that falls
+toward zero at the lowest attainable score.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-04 — Engineering Basis — `05-flaw-conventions.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The flaw-continuity stage applied by the core, wall or cliff, and foundation or
+abutment compaction models, and its shared curve (likelihood factor 1, 2, 3, 4 → negligible,
+1 × 10⁻⁴, 1 × 10⁻³, 1 × 10⁻¹), keyed to a different compaction factor in each model.
+
+**Needed:** The physical meaning of the flaw-continuity probability, its source (or the
+engineering-judgment attribution), and confirmation that one curve is intended for all three
+models.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-05 — Engineering Basis — `05-flaw-conventions.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The normal-pool heuristic placing the base of a core or abutment compaction flaw
+one third of the way from the normal pool elevation to the crest.
+
+**Needed:** Literature source or engineering-judgment attribution, including why the normal pool
+and not the base of the embankment is the lower reference.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** A screening convention that places the flaw within the band of pools
+the embankment experiences, so that initiation is evaluated above normal pool where loading is
+frequent.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-06 — Engineering Basis — `06-initiation.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The initiation probability of 1.0 applied by the crest-crack models once the pool
+rises above the bottom of an open crest crack (0 at or below it). The model records two
+different attributions: a conservative screening convention that is not an explicit finding of
+Pierson (2023), and an attribution of the certain initiation to Pierson (2023).
+
+**Needed:** Which attribution is intended. If Pierson (2023) is to be cited, its full
+bibliographic details (authors, title, publisher or journal, report number) for the
+bibliography.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** An open transverse crack at the crest is wide enough that the shear
+stress of any flow through it exceeds the critical shear stress of the crack walls, so
+initiation is taken as certain once water can enter the crack — a conservative screening
+posture under which a site needing a lower value adjusts the SRP.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-07 — Engineering Basis — `06-initiation.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The default critical shear stress ranges by soil classification shared by the
+four compaction models (lb/ft²: SM, SC, ML 0.02089 / 0.04177 / 0.1044; GM 0.021 / 0.08354 /
+0.2089; CL-ML 0.04177 / 0.08354 / 0.2089; GC 0.04177 / 0.08354 / 0.418; CL, MH 0.04177 /
+0.1044 / 0.4177; CH 0.2089 / 0.5221 / 1.044).
+
+**Needed:** Literature source with full bibliographic details for the bibliography, or the
+engineering-judgment attribution.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The values are conversions of round values in pascals (1, 2, 4, 5,
+10, 20, 25, 50 Pa), suggesting a source table published in SI units.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-08 — Decision — `06-initiation.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** Two entries of the critical shear stress table that do not follow the pascal
+conversion of the rest: the GM low value 0.021 lb/ft² (1 Pa = 0.02089 lb/ft²) and the GC high
+value 0.418 lb/ft² (20 Pa = 0.4177 lb/ft²).
+
+**Needed:** Whether these values are intended as printed or should match the converted values.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-09 — Engineering Basis — `06-initiation.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The exclusion of the six clean and nearly clean sand and gravel classes (SP-SM,
+SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, GP; less than 12 percent fines) as the
+core soil classification of all four compaction models.
+
+**Needed:** Engineering basis or engineering-judgment attribution.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** A cohesionless soil cannot sustain an open pipe or crack, so a
+compaction flaw in it would collapse rather than carry a concentrated leak; such soils are
+addressed by other internal-erosion failure modes.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-10 — Engineering Basis — `06-initiation.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The triangular form of the default critical shear stress distribution over the
+tabulated low, most likely, and high values.
+
+**Needed:** Engineering basis or engineering-judgment attribution.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The triangular form follows the probabilistic input of the
+Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox, which represents the critical shear stress and the
+initial pipe diameter by triangular distributions over their minimum, most likely, and maximum
+values.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-11 — Engineering Basis — `06-initiation.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The default initial pipe diameter ranges (triangular, mm): core compaction 2 / 3
+/ 5; conduit compaction 5 / 10 / 12.5; wall or cliff compaction 5 / 5 / 10; foundation or
+abutment compaction 2 / 3 / 5.
+
+**Needed:** Literature source or engineering-judgment attribution, including why the conduit
+range is larger than the core range and why the wall or cliff range has its most likely value at
+its low value.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-12 — Engineering Basis — `07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The crest-crack pathway convention: (1) continuation and roof support share one
+gate at the top of the first filter the pathway meets, with certain continuation above it; (2)
+the below-filter roof materials are taken at the bottom-of-crack elevation; (3) a filter whose
+top reaches the crest, with no full-pathway materials given, caps the pathway at every pool
+level.
+
+**Needed:** Literature source or engineering-judgment attribution.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** A crest crack is open over its full depth, so a pool above the
+filter's top drives flow through the upper part of the crack over the filter, where nothing
+filters the exit; below the filter's top, all flow through the crack reaches the filter.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-13 — Definition — `07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The meaning of the crack-filling values by embankment type (homogeneous earthfill
+1.0, zoned earthfill 1.0, central-core earth and rockfill 0.5). The source table is described
+as giving the probability of crack filling, while the event tree multiplies the value directly
+as the probability of no crack filling.
+
+**Needed:** Which reading the source table supports, and its table number in Fell et al. (2024).
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The value is the probability that crack filling does not stop the
+erosion — an earthfill embankment has no upstream zone of material able to fill the pipe, so no
+credit is taken, while the upstream zone of a central-core earth and rockfill embankment is
+credited with a one-in-two chance of filling it.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-14 — Engineering Basis — `07-failure-pathway-and-progression.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The flow-limitation conventions: (1) the minimum across several upstream elements
+governs; (2) a wall stops limiting flow above its top — per pool level for a crest crack, and
+against the base of the flaw for a compaction flaw — while an upstream facing element applies at
+every pool level; (3) the conduit compaction model takes no flow-limitation credit.
+
+**Needed:** Literature source (including the table in Fell et al. (2024) that gives the
+flow-limitation probabilities) or the engineering-judgment attribution.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-15 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The elevation, or range of elevations, at which the full-pathway roof materials
+of the crest-crack models are taken. The below-filter materials are taken at the
+bottom-of-crack elevation; the full-pathway materials are described only as every non-filter
+material from the upstream face to the downstream face.
+
+**Needed:** The elevation or elevation range at which the user should cut the section when
+listing the full-pathway materials (for example, the bottom of the crack, the top of the
+filter, or the whole depth of the crack above the filter's top).
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
diff --git a/src/docConfig.js b/src/docConfig.js
index 3aa150ad4..092a5edd7 100644
--- a/src/docConfig.js
+++ b/src/docConfig.js
@@ -349,7 +349,8 @@ const docs = [
software: 'system-response',
doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening',
doc_name: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual',
- active: false,
+ sidebar_label: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Common Methods Screening',
+ active: true,
draft: true,
},
{
diff --git a/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/bib.json b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/bib.json
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e5c80cf3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/bib.json
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+[
+ {
+ "citationKey": "Fell2024",
+ "entryType": "report",
+ "author": [
+ "R. Fell",
+ "M.A. Foster",
+ "J. Cyganiewicz",
+ "R.R. Davidson",
+ "G.L. Sills"
+ ],
+ "title": "Methods for Estimating Probability of Failure of Embankment Dams by Internal Erosion and Piping (The Piping Toolbox 2024)",
+ "year": 2024,
+ "institution": "University of New South Wales, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering",
+ "report": "Report No. 470"
+ }
+]