diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..5367f9679
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+title: Document Info
+reportDate: October 2026
+reportType: Technical Reference
+reportTitle: Concentrated Leak Erosion Conduit Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual
+reportSubTitle: System Response Library
+reportAuthors: ['Adam Gohs, P.E.']
+reportAbstract: Technical reference documenting the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) conduit compaction screening model in the System Response library. The model computes a system response probability (SRP) at each headwater level for concentrated leak erosion through a zone of poorly compacted earthfill adjacent to a conduit through an embankment. The probability of a continuous flaw is estimated by risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of four conduit factors, namely the conduit type and surround, cutoff collars, the compaction of the fill adjacent to the conduit, and the conduit trench details, and an observation of leakage adjacent to the conduit can override it. The flaw is placed at the bottom of the conduit and idealized as a cylindrical pipe, for which the initiation probability is evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation. A diaphragm filter around the conduit, when present, is evaluated by the shared continuation method, and the progression, intervention, and breach nodes follow the conventions of the CLE screening family, with no credit taken for flow limitation by upstream elements. The methods shared with the other CLE screening models are documented in the CLE Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual.
+reportSubjectTerms: ['CLE', 'Concentrated Leak Erosion', 'Conduit', 'Poor Compaction', 'Screening', 'Event Tree', 'System Response Probability', 'System Response Curve', 'Risk Factor', 'Likelihood Factor', 'Cutoff Collar', 'Diaphragm Filter', 'Cylindrical Pipe', 'Monte Carlo']
+citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, Concentrated Leak Erosion Conduit Compaction 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-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f58535c75
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-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-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..952d1da8b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+title: Preface
+---
+
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+
+
+
+# Preface
+
+This document provides a technical reference for the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) conduit compaction screening model in the System Response
+library. The model computes a system response probability (SRP) as a function of headwater elevation for concentrated leak erosion through a zone
+of poorly compacted earthfill adjacent to a conduit that passes through an embankment. It is a screening-level model: it applies simplifications
+intended to reduce input burden while avoiding false negatives, and any application that performs screening-level risk analysis can use it.
+
+The model is one of eight CLE screening models. All eight share one event-tree structure and one set of failure-pathway and progression
+conventions; seven of the eight share one scoring scheme for the flaw probability, and the four compaction models among them share one initiation
+analysis. The exception to the shared scoring scheme is the cross-valley settlement model, which derives its flaw probability from settlement and
+crack-strain relationships.
+Those common methods are documented once, in the
+[CLE Common Methods Screening Technical Reference Manual](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/preface). The
+continuation node, where a filter is present, is evaluated by the shared continuation method documented in the
+[Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening Technical Reference Manual](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/preface).
+This document covers what is specific to the conduit compaction model — the flaw and the four conduit factors that score it, the bottom-of-conduit
+flaw elevation, the observation of leakage adjacent to the conduit, the diaphragm filter that gates continuation, the default initial pipe
+diameter, the absence of a flow-limitation node, the assumptions specific to the mechanism, and the results the model reports — and cites the
+specific chapters of those two manuals for the rest.
+
+The intended audience includes dam safety engineers evaluating whether the model is 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 model's purpose and intended use, a summary of its execution pathway from inputs to results,
+ its engineering basis, a comparison with detailed methods, and its relationship to the shared CLE methods and the typical event tree for a crack
+ along an embedded structure.
+- **[Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx)** — The inputs specific to the model (the four conduit factors, the leakage observation, the
+ bottom-of-conduit elevation, the diaphragm filter, and the initial pipe diameter default), and which of the shared CLE inputs the model takes.
+- **[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)** — The scoring of the four conduit factors, the weighted sum and its conversion to a flaw
+ probability, the attainable range of the result, the leakage observation override, and the flaw elevation.
+- **[Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)** — How each of the eight nodes is populated for a conduit flaw, including the cylindrical-pipe initiation
+ analysis, the diaphragm-filter gate on continuation, and the flow-limitation node held at 1.0, and how the SRP is computed.
+- **[Assumptions and Limitations](./06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx)** — Each assumption specific to the conduit compaction model, with its
+ engineering basis, its effect on results, and the conditions under which it may not hold.
+- **[Output and Interpretation](./07-output-and-interpretation.mdx)** — The results the model produces, how to read the system response curve and
+ its node breakdown for a conduit flaw, how to check a result, and the role of screening results relative to detailed analysis.
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d28913356
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+---
+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
+
+The conduit compaction screening model computes a system response curve for concentrated leak erosion through poorly compacted earthfill adjacent
+to a conduit, 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 along the conduit, given that pool level.
+
+The flaw is a continuous zone of loose or poorly compacted earthfill along the conduit, through which water from the reservoir can flow and erode
+the surrounding soil. The model scores the likelihood of such a flaw from four factors that describe the conduit and the placement of the fill
+around it, places the flaw at the bottom of the conduit, and carries it through the eight-node CLE event tree.
+
+## Intended Use
+
+The model is a screening-level assessment of concentrated leak erosion along a conduit. Like the other CLE screening models (see the
+[Intended Use](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#intended-use) section of the CLE Common
+Methods manual), it makes simplifying and generally conservative assumptions to avoid false negatives, and it substitutes qualitative selections
+for site-specific measurements to reduce input burden. Each of the four conduit factors accepts Unknown where the information is not available.
+
+The model is not intended for detailed or semi-quantitative risk assessments. A detailed analysis of a conduit flaw assesses the flaw, its
+location, and each progression condition directly (see [Comparison with Detailed Models](#comparison-with-detailed-models)).
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-01 — Applicability]
+State the scope of the flaw the model is intended to represent. The model scores the likelihood of a continuous zone of poorly compacted fill
+adjacent to a conduit. The typical event tree for a crack along an embedded structure also names a low-stress zone (for example, from differential
+settlement or arching over the conduit) as a cause of the flaw, and erosion of embankment soil into the conduit through open joints or defects is a
+further conduit-related mechanism. Neither enters the model's flaw factors. State whether a low-stress zone or hydraulic fracture along the conduit
+is intended to be screened with this model, with another model, or not at the screening level, and whether erosion into a defective conduit is
+outside the model's scope.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): the model screens poor compaction adjacent to the conduit only; low-stress zones and erosion into the conduit are
+separate failure modes that the model does not address. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+## How the Model Works
+
+The model executes the three stages common to the CLE screening models
+(see [How the Model Works](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#how-the-model-works) in the
+CLE Common Methods manual), with these conduit-specific elements:
+
+1. **Flaw assessment** — Four conduit factors (the conduit type and surround, cutoff collars, the compaction of the fill adjacent to the conduit,
+ and the conduit trench details) are each scored with a likelihood factor, weighted, and summed, and the weighted sum is converted to a flaw
+ probability. An observation of leakage adjacent to the conduit sets the flaw probability to 1.0. The flaw elevation is the bottom of the
+ conduit, which the user supplies (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)).
+
+2. **Pathway resolution** — The failure pathway runs through the embankment at the bottom of the conduit. The user states whether a diaphragm
+ filter surrounds the conduit, and lists the soils the pipe passes through. The model has no upstream seepage-limiting elements to resolve (see
+ [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)).
+
+3. **Event-tree assembly** — At each headwater level, the model multiplies the eight node probabilities. Initiation is evaluated by Monte Carlo
+ simulation of a cylindrical pipe at the bottom of the conduit, continuation is evaluated by the shared continuation method only when a diaphragm
+ filter is present, and the flow-limitation node is held at 1.0 (see [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx)).
+
+## Physics Basis
+
+The model combines the following engineering methods:
+
+- **Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring** of four conduit factors for the probability of a continuous flaw ,
+ following the scheme documented in the
+ [Flaw Conventions](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring)
+ chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual (see [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx))
+- **Hydraulic shear stress on the walls of a cylindrical pipe** at the bottom of the conduit, compared with the critical shear stress of the
+ adjacent soil, following the
+ [Initiation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation)
+ chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual
+- **Filter evaluation** of a diaphragm filter around the conduit, through the shared continuation method documented in the
+ [Method Selection and Governing Base Soil](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil)
+ chapter of the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual
+- **Roof-support probabilities by soil classification** and **crack-filling probabilities by embankment type** for the progression of the pipe , as tabulated
+ in the
+ [Failure Pathway and Progression](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-4-progression--roof-support)
+ chapter of the CLE Common Methods manual
+
+## Comparison with Detailed Models
+
+The detailed counterparts of the screening model are the internal-erosion probability methods of Fell et al. (2024)
+applied in full, with the
+[Cylindrical Pipe](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/concentrated-leak-erosion-initiation/v1.0/cylindrical-pipe) method of
+the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox for initiation and the
+[Filter Evaluation (Continuation)](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/internal-erosion-suite/filter-evaluation-continuation/v1.0/general-overview)
+toolbox for continuation. summarizes the differences specific to a conduit
+flaw; the differences common to the CLE family are summarized in the
+[Comparison with Detailed Models](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#comparison-with-detailed-models)
+section of the CLE Common Methods manual.
+
+
+
+## Relationship to the Shared CLE Methods
+
+The model is one of the four compaction models of the CLE family (see
+[The Two Model Groups](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#the-two-model-groups) in the CLE
+Common Methods manual). It shares with the other three the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis, the critical shear stress table, and the rule
+that every node except initiation is the same at every pool level. It differs from them in three ways:
+
+- **Four flaw factors, weighted 3, 2, 2, and 2,** where the other compaction models score three, and **no flaw-continuity stage**: the scored
+ probability is the flaw probability.
+- **A directly supplied flaw elevation**, the bottom of the conduit. The core compaction model and the abutment case of the foundation and
+ abutment compaction model place the flaw by a normal-pool heuristic, the foundation case of that model takes the embankment-foundation contact
+ elevation directly, and the wall and cliff compaction model takes the crest elevation minus the wall or cliff height.
+- **No flow-limitation node input**: Node 6 is fixed at 1.0, so no upstream cutoff or facing reduces the SRP.
+
+Two further features are shared with only some of the other compaction models. The observation override leaves the flaw elevation unchanged, as
+in the wall and cliff compaction model; the core compaction model's observation also relocates the flaw, and the foundation and abutment
+compaction model has no observation override. Like the wall and cliff and the foundation and abutment compaction models, the model gates
+continuation on an explicit yes-or-no answer about the filter and ignores the continuation inputs when the answer is no; the core compaction model
+instead evaluates continuation whenever a filter description is supplied. The form of the filter, a diaphragm around the conduit, is specific to
+this model.
+
+It also carries its own default initial pipe diameter range, larger than that of the core compaction model (see
+[Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx#node-2-initiation)).
+
+## Relationship to the Typical Event Tree
+
+The [embedded-structure](/docs/toolbox-technical-manuals/risk-calculations-suite/typical-event-tree-database/v1.5/Concentrated-Leak-Erosion#along-embedded-structure)
+tree of the Typical Event Tree Database, written for a crack along a structure such as a conduit, carries eight events that correspond to those of
+the screening tree: a transverse crack along the structure, initiation, continuation, crack stability, flow limitation by upstream zones, crack filling by
+upstream zones, unsuccessful intervention, and breach. The screening model differs from it in three respects, so the database tree is not
+presented here as the model's structure:
+
+- The database flaw node allows a low-stress zone or poor compaction; the screening flaw is poor compaction only.
+- The screening model does not evaluate flow limitation: the node is held at 1.0.
+- The screening model orders crack filling before flow limitation. Because the SRP is a product of the node probabilities, the order does not
+ affect the result.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f68b8a6a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+---
+title: Input Parameters
+---
+
+import NavContainer from '@site/src/components/NavContainer';
+import TableReference from '@site/src/components/TableReference';
+import TableVertical from '@site/src/components/TableVertical';
+
+
+
+# Input Parameters
+
+The conduit compaction model takes most of the inputs shared by the CLE compaction models, documented in the
+[Common Input Parameters](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) chapter of the CLE Common
+Methods manual, and adds the inputs specific to a conduit flaw. This chapter lists which shared inputs apply, then documents the conduit-specific
+inputs: the four flaw factors, the leakage observation, the bottom-of-conduit elevation, the diaphragm filter, and the default initial pipe
+diameter. Each group gives the short facts for its quantities in a table, followed by a description of each input and, for selections, the list of
+available choices.
+
+## Shared Inputs
+
+The model takes the following shared inputs, each as documented in the CLE Common Methods manual:
+
+- **[Hydraulic loading](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#hydraulic-loading)** — the
+ headwater elevation series $h$ and the optional tailwater series $h_t$. Tailwater, when it stands above the bottom of the
+ conduit, reduces the net head across the pipe in the initiation analysis.
+- **[Units and datum](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#units-and-datum)** — every
+ elevation on one common datum, with the embankment above zero elevation.
+- **[Embankment description](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#embankment-description)**
+ — the crest elevation $z_c$, the embankment type, the shell top width and face segments, and the optional core section. When a core section is
+ supplied it is used for the seepage path length and for the limits on the bottom-of-conduit elevation, whatever the embankment type; otherwise
+ the shell section is used. The model scores no section geometry in its flaw assessment.
+- **[Failure-pathway inputs](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#failure-pathway-inputs)**
+ of the compaction models — the filter presence, stated here as the presence of a diaphragm filter around the conduit (see
+ [Diaphragm Filter](#diaphragm-filter)), the embankment materials the pipe passes through, and the continuation inputs.
+- **[Initiation material inputs](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#initiation-material-inputs)**
+ — the core soil classification, and the optional critical shear stress distribution, initial pipe diameter distribution, and seepage path
+ length. The core soil classification may not be SP, SW, GP, GW, SP-SM, or GP-GM, because non-plastic soils are not modeled; these
+ classifications are refused even when a critical shear stress distribution is supplied. The initial pipe diameter default specific to this model is given under [Initial Pipe Diameter](#initial-pipe-diameter).
+- **[Intervention and breach](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#intervention-and-breach)**
+ — the probabilities of unsuccessful intervention $P_{int}$ and of breach $P_{br}$, each defaulting to 1.0.
+
+The model does not take the
+[upstream seepage-limiting elements](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#upstream-seepage-limiting-elements)
+or a top-of-wall elevation: it has no flow-limitation input, and its Node 6 is fixed at 1.0 (see
+[Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx#node-6-progression--no-flow-limitation)).
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-02 — Definition]
+The core soil classification selects the default critical shear stress range of the initiation analysis. For this model it is not stated which
+soil it describes: the earthfill compacted adjacent to the conduit, in which the flaw would erode, or the core of the embankment. State which soil
+the user should classify, and how to choose when the fill adjacent to the conduit differs from the core.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): the classification of the earthfill adjacent to the conduit, since that is the soil whose walls the concentrated leak
+erodes. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+## Flaw Inputs
+
+The flaw inputs describe the conduit and the fill around it, and fix the elevation of the flaw
+(). How the model scores them is documented in
+[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx).
+
+f'],
+ ['—', '—', '—', '—', '—', 'ft or m'],
+ [
+ 'One of five choices',
+ 'One of three choices',
+ 'One of five choices',
+ 'One of four choices',
+ 'Yes or no',
+ 'Within the section used; > 0',
+ ],
+ [
+ 'None (required)',
+ 'None (required)',
+ 'None (required)',
+ 'None (required)',
+ 'No',
+ 'None (required)',
+ ],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+The four conduit factors are required unless leakage adjacent to the conduit is observed.
+
+- **Conduit type and surround** — the form of the conduit and of any concrete encasing it. The choices are:
+ - **Concrete-encased round pipe with sloping sides** — a round pipe in a concrete encasement whose sides slope.
+ - **Concrete-encased round pipe with vertical sides** — a round pipe in a concrete encasement whose sides are vertical.
+ - **Masonry or brick with vertical sides** — a masonry or brick conduit with vertical sides.
+ - **Round pipe not encased** — a round pipe with no concrete encasement.
+ - **Unknown** — the conduit type or its surround is not known.
+- **Cutoff collars** — whether cutoff collars (also called seepage collars) project from the conduit into the surrounding fill. The choices are
+ **Absent**, **Present**, and **Unknown**.
+- **Compaction adjacent to the conduit** — how the earthfill against the conduit was compacted. The choices are:
+ - **Mechanical, slightly wet of optimum** — compacted by mechanical equipment at a water content slightly wet of optimum.
+ - **By hand, slightly dry of optimum** — compacted by hand at a water content slightly dry of optimum.
+ - **By hand in thick layers, dry of optimum** — compacted by hand in thick layers at a water content dry of optimum.
+ - **No formal compaction** — the fill against the conduit was not formally compacted.
+ - **Unknown** — the method of compaction is not known.
+- **Conduit trench details** — the geometry of the trench in which the conduit was laid. The choices are:
+ - **Wide, with slopes flatter than 1H:1V** — a wide trench whose side slopes are flatter than one horizontal to one vertical.
+ - **Medium width, depth, and slope** — a trench of intermediate width, depth, and side slope.
+ - **Narrow and deep, with near-vertical sides** — a narrow, deep trench with near-vertical sides.
+ - **Unknown** — the trench geometry is not known.
+- **Leakage adjacent to the conduit observed** — whether leakage has been observed adjacent to the conduit. A yes sets the flaw probability to
+ 1.0 and makes the four factor selections optional; the bottom-of-conduit elevation is still required and is not changed (see
+ [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#leakage-observation-override)).
+- **Bottom-of-conduit elevation** — the elevation of the bottom of the conduit, which the model uses as the base-of-flaw elevation $z_f$: the
+ invert of the idealized pipe, and the elevation of the failure pathway (see
+ [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#flaw-elevation)). It must be a positive elevation on the common datum, no higher than the top of the
+ embankment section used for initiation (the core top when a core section is supplied, otherwise the crest), and no lower than the lowest
+ segment bottom of each face of that section.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-03 — Definition]
+The conduit-factor categories are named without fuller definitions. State what each covers so that a user can select among them, in particular:
+(1) whether "round pipe not encased" includes corrugated metal and other flexible pipes, and which choice applies to conduits not listed, such as
+a cast-in-place rectangular or horseshoe conduit or a concrete box culvert; (2) whether "no formal compaction" also covers poor compaction in very
+thick lifts without moisture control; and (3) the trench widths, depths, and side slopes that separate the wide, medium, and narrow trench
+categories, given that only the wide category carries a stated slope limit (flatter than 1H:1V). Cite the table of Fell et al. (2024) that
+defines the categories, if they are taken from it.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): "round pipe not encased" includes corrugated metal pipe; "no formal compaction" covers poor compaction with very thick
+lifts and no moisture control; and the narrow, deep trench is one backfilled with soil. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-04 — Definition]
+State what observation qualifies as "leakage adjacent to the conduit" for the override — for example, seepage emerging along the outside of the
+conduit at its outlet, wet areas over the conduit alignment on the downstream slope, or flow carrying fines — and whether leakage into the conduit
+through its joints qualifies.
+:::
+
+## Diaphragm Filter
+
+The model states the presence of a filter on the failure pathway as the presence of a diaphragm filter around the conduit
+().
+
+
+
+- **Diaphragm filter around the conduit** — whether a diaphragm filter surrounds the conduit and intercepts the failure pathway. With no
+ diaphragm filter, the exit is taken as unfiltered and continuation is certain.
+- **Continuation inputs** — the description of the diaphragm filter and of the base soils upstream of it, as documented in the
+ [Base Soils](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#base-soils) and
+ [Filter](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#filter) sections of the Continuation (Filter
+ Evaluation) Screening manual. They are required, and checked, only when a diaphragm filter is present; with no diaphragm filter they are not
+ used, even if supplied.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-05 — Applicability]
+The model recognizes only a diaphragm filter around the conduit as a filter on the failure pathway. State whether the user should answer yes for
+other filters that intercept the zone along the conduit — for example, a chimney or blanket filter that the conduit passes through, or a filter
+envelope placed around the downstream portion of the conduit — or whether those are intended to be left uncredited at the screening level.
+:::
+
+## Initial Pipe Diameter
+
+The initial pipe diameter $D$ of the idealized cylindrical pipe is an optional distribution input, shared with the other compaction models (see
+[Initiation Material Inputs](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#initiation-material-inputs)
+in the CLE Common Methods manual). Left blank, it defaults to the triangular distribution of
+, which is specific to this model. A site-specific distribution, of any of
+the five distribution forms the compaction models accept, replaces the default.
+
+
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-06 — Engineering Basis]
+The default initial pipe diameter of the conduit compaction model (triangular, low 5 mm, most likely 10 mm, high 12.5 mm) requires an engineering
+basis, including why it is larger than the core compaction model's default (triangular, 2, 3, and 5 mm). Provide a literature source or the
+engineering-judgment attribution to state here. The same question is open for the family's default diameters in the CLE Common Methods manual
+(its marker IN-11), so the two should be resolved together.
+:::
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..8d339d980
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-assessment.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,250 @@
+---
+title: Flaw Assessment
+---
+
+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';
+
+
+
+# Flaw Assessment
+
+Node 1 of the event tree is the probability $P_{flaw}$ that a continuous zone of poorly compacted earthfill exists along the conduit, through the
+embankment. The model estimates it by the risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of Fell et al. (2024) ,
+applied to four conduit factors. The scheme — the factors, the weighted sum, and its log-linear conversion to a probability — is documented in the
+[Risk-Factor and Likelihood-Factor Scoring](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#risk-factor-and-likelihood-factor-scoring)
+section of the CLE Common Methods manual. This chapter documents the conduit model's factors, its likelihood-factor tables, its flaw-probability
+curve, its observation override, and its flaw elevation. The assessment does not depend on pool level: $P_{flaw}$ applies across the whole system
+response curve.
+
+## Factors and Risk Factors
+
+The model scores four factors, each with a fixed risk factor $RF$ that weights its influence
+(). The conduit type and surround carries the largest weight; the other three
+are weighted equally.
+
+cd', 'LFcol', 'LFcmp', 'LFtr'],
+ ['3', '2', '2', '2'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-07 — Bibliography]
+The four conduit factors and their risk factors (3 for the conduit type and surround, 2 for each of the other three) are attributed to the
+risk-factor and likelihood-factor scheme of Fell et al. (2024). Identify the table of Fell et al. (2024) that gives the factors and weights for
+poor compaction adjacent to a conduit, so that it can be cited here, or provide the engineering-judgment attribution if the weights are specific
+to this model. State also the basis for applying no flaw-continuity stage to this model, where the core, wall or cliff, and foundation or
+abutment compaction models multiply their scored probability by a flaw-continuity probability keyed to their compaction factor.
+:::
+
+## Likelihood Factors
+
+Each factor's selection maps to a likelihood factor on the scale of 1 (least likely to produce a flaw) to 4 (most likely). The four lookups follow.
+
+### Conduit type and surround
+
+cd' }]]}
+ columns={[
+ [
+ 'Concrete-encased round pipe with sloping sides',
+ 'Concrete-encased round pipe with vertical sides',
+ 'Masonry or brick with vertical sides',
+ 'Round pipe not encased',
+ 'Unknown',
+ ],
+ ['1', '2', '3', '4', '3'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+### Cutoff collars
+
+col' }]]}
+ columns={[
+ ['Absent', 'Present', 'Unknown'],
+ ['1', '3', '3'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+A conduit with cutoff collars scores higher than one without, and an Unknown selection scores the same as Present: when the presence of collars is
+not known, the model takes the less favorable condition.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-08 — Engineering Basis]
+The cutoff-collar likelihood factors (Absent 1, Present 3, Unknown 3) require an engineering basis to state here: why the presence of cutoff
+collars raises the likelihood of a flaw, why no intermediate value (such as 2) is used, and why an unknown condition is scored the same as collars
+present rather than at an intermediate value. Provide the table of Fell et al. (2024) or the engineering-judgment attribution, and state the
+site conditions under which the collar scores should not be relied on (for Assumption 3 of
+[Assumptions and Limitations](./06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx#flaw)).
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): fill around cutoff collars is difficult to compact, so collars increase rather than reduce the likelihood of a poorly
+compacted zone; Unknown takes the unfavorable value so that a missing record does not lower the screening result; the collar scores may not hold where the fill around the collars is known to have been
+compacted to the standard of the rest of the fill. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+### Compaction adjacent to the conduit
+
+cmp' }]]}
+ columns={[
+ [
+ 'Mechanical, slightly wet of optimum',
+ 'By hand, slightly dry of optimum',
+ 'By hand in thick layers, dry of optimum',
+ 'No formal compaction',
+ 'Unknown',
+ ],
+ ['1', '2', '3', '4', '3'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+### Conduit trench details
+
+tr' }]]}
+ columns={[
+ [
+ 'Wide, with slopes flatter than 1H:1V',
+ 'Medium width, depth, and slope',
+ 'Narrow and deep, with near-vertical sides',
+ 'Unknown',
+ ],
+ ['2', '3', '4', '3'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+The trench factor has no choice scored 1: the most favorable trench, wide with slopes flatter than 1H:1V, scores 2. The trench factor therefore
+contributes at least 4 to the weighted sum (twice its risk factor), which sets the minimum attainable sum at 11.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-09 — Engineering Basis]
+The likelihood factors of the conduit type and surround, the compaction adjacent to the conduit, and the conduit trench details
+(, ,
+and ) require an engineering basis, including: (1) the score of 3 given to
+an Unknown selection for each of the three factors; and (2) why the trench factor has no choice scored 1, so that its most favorable choice scores
+2. Provide the table of Fell et al. (2024) from which the scores are taken, or the engineering-judgment attribution.
+:::
+
+## Weighted Sum
+
+The likelihood factors combine into the weighted sum described in the
+[Weighted Sum](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#weighted-sum) section of the CLE Common
+Methods manual, which for the four conduit factors is:
+
+
+
+Because the trench factor scores at least 2, the weighted sum ranges from 11 (every factor at its most favorable choice) to 34 (every factor at its
+least favorable choice). A selection of Unknown for all four factors gives $\Sigma = 27$.
+
+## Flaw Probability
+
+The weighted sum is converted to the raw flaw probability $P_{raw}$ by interpolating the logarithm of the probability linearly between the points
+of , as described in the
+[Flaw Probability from the Weighted Sum](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-probability-from-the-weighted-sum)
+section of the CLE Common Methods manual.
+
+raw' }]]}
+ columns={[
+ ['11', '14', '17', '20', '28', '36'],
+ [
+ '1.5 × 10-4',
+ '3 × 10-4',
+ '6 × 10-4',
+ '2 × 10-3',
+ '1 × 10-2',
+ '8 × 10-2',
+ ],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+Over the attainable range of the weighted sum, the flaw probability runs from $1.5 \times 10^{-4}$ at $\Sigma = 11$ to about
+$4.8 \times 10^{-2}$ at $\Sigma = 34$; the last tabulated point, $\Sigma = 36$, cannot be reached and serves only to interpolate above
+$\Sigma = 28$. With every factor Unknown ($\Sigma = 27$), the flaw probability is about $8.2 \times 10^{-3}$.
+
+The model applies none of the rules that can force the raw flaw probability to zero in other CLE models: no factor is marked as physically
+incompatible with a flaw, and no lower threshold on the weighted sum applies, since the lowest attainable sum is the first tabulated point. Nor does
+the model apply a flaw-continuity stage (see the
+[Flaw-Continuity Stage](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#flaw-continuity-stage) section of
+the CLE Common Methods manual). Without an observation, the flaw probability is the scored value:
+
+
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-10 — Engineering Basis]
+The flaw-probability curve of is recorded in the model as the curve for one
+loading condition, described as the pool of record plus 20 percent, and the model applies it at every pool level. Provide: (1) the table or figure
+of Fell et al. (2024) from which the six points are taken; (2) a definition of the "pool of record plus 20 percent" loading condition; and (3) the
+engineering basis for using the curve of that one loading condition for the flaw probability at every pool level, given that the source may
+tabulate other loading conditions (for example, pools below the pool of record, or first filling) with different probabilities.
+:::
+
+## Leakage Observation Override
+
+When leakage adjacent to the conduit has been observed, the flaw is taken as demonstrated and the flaw probability is set to 1.0:
+
+
+
+The observation makes the four factor selections optional. When all four factors are given, the weighted sum and raw flaw probability remain
+available for comparison, but the flaw probability is 1.0. The override sets only
+Node 1: it does not change the flaw elevation, and every downstream node is evaluated as usual, as described in the
+[Observation Overrides](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides) section
+of the CLE Common Methods manual.
+
+## Flaw Elevation
+
+The base-of-flaw elevation $z_f$ is the bottom-of-conduit elevation the user supplies (see
+[Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#flaw-inputs)). It is used directly — no heuristic is applied — and it is not changed by the leakage
+observation. It fixes the invert of the idealized pipe for initiation, the elevation at which the seepage path length is measured, and the
+elevation of the failure pathway that the diaphragm filter and the embankment materials describe (see
+[Compaction Models: Base of the Flaw](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#compaction-models-base-of-the-flaw)
+in the CLE Common Methods manual).
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-11 — Engineering Basis]
+Two choices about the flaw elevation require an engineering basis to state here: (1) placing the flaw at the bottom of the conduit, rather than at
+another elevation along the conduit's height such as its haunches or springline; and (2) keeping the flaw at the bottom of the conduit when
+leakage has been observed, whatever the elevation at which the leakage emerges, where the core compaction model instead moves its flaw to the
+observed leakage elevation. Provide the literature source or the engineering-judgment attribution.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): the bottom of the conduit is the lowest elevation a flaw along the conduit can occupy, so initiation can begin at the
+lowest pool level and the net head across the flaw is largest there (the seepage path is also longest there, which partly offsets the larger
+head); leakage along a conduit is taken to follow the conduit, so its emergence point does not locate the flaw better than the conduit itself.
+Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..9fe125f8f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/05-event-tree.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
+---
+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 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';
+
+
+
+# Event Tree
+
+The model computes the SRP at each headwater level as the product of the eight-node CLE event tree, whose structure, node questions, and headwater
+grid are documented in the [Event Tree](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) chapter of the CLE
+Common Methods manual. This chapter documents how each node is populated for a conduit flaw.
+ summarizes the nodes.
+
+
+
+The flaw is at one elevation, the bottom of the conduit, so the filter it meets and the materials it passes through do not change with pool level.
+Only initiation varies with pool level, as for every compaction model (see
+[Pool Dependence](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#pool-dependence) in the CLE Common Methods
+manual).
+
+## Node 1: Flaw
+
+*Question:* Does a continuous zone of poorly compacted earthfill exist along the conduit, through the embankment?
+
+$P_{flaw}$ is the result of the four-factor scoring, or 1.0 when leakage adjacent to the conduit has been observed, as documented in
+[Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx). It is the same at every pool level.
+
+## Node 2: Initiation
+
+*Question:* At each pool level, does the flow through the poorly compacted zone at the bottom of the conduit exert a hydraulic shear
+stress on the walls of the zone that exceeds the critical shear stress of the soil?
+
+The zone is idealized as a cylindrical pipe and the question is answered by the cylindrical-pipe initiation analysis shared by the compaction
+models, documented in the
+[Delegated Method: Cylindrical Pipe Initiation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#delegated-method-cylindrical-pipe-initiation)
+section of the CLE Common Methods manual and, for its theory, 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. At each pool level $h$ with tailwater $h_t$, the analysis takes the net head across the pipe above
+its invert, divides it by the seepage path length $L$ to obtain the average hydraulic gradient, computes the hydraulic shear stress on the wall of
+a pipe of initial diameter $D$, and reports the initiation probability $P_{init}(h)$ as the fraction of Monte Carlo realizations, each drawing one
+critical shear stress $\tau_c$ and one diameter $D$, in which the shear stress exceeds the critical shear stress.
+
+The conduit model supplies the analysis with the following:
+
+- **Pipe invert** — the bottom-of-conduit elevation $z_f$. A pool at or below the bottom of the conduit gives no flow through the pipe and zero
+ initiation.
+- **Seepage path length** — unless the user supplies a length, the horizontal width of the embankment section at the bottom of the conduit,
+ measured across the core section when one is supplied and across the shell otherwise, as described in the
+ [Seepage Path Length](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#seepage-path-length) section of the CLE
+ Common Methods manual. A supplied length suits a conduit that does not run perpendicular to the embankment centerline or a surveyed path along
+ the conduit.
+- **Critical shear stress** — unless the user supplies a distribution, the triangular range for the core soil classification from the shared table
+ in the [Critical Shear Stress](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#critical-shear-stress)
+ section of the CLE Common Methods manual. The classifications SP, SW, GP, GW, SP-SM, and GP-GM are not accepted, because non-plastic soils are
+ not modeled (see [Shared Inputs](./03-input-parameters.mdx#shared-inputs)).
+- **Initial pipe diameter** — unless the user supplies a distribution, the triangular distribution with low 5 mm, most likely 10 mm, and high
+ 12.5 mm (see [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#initial-pipe-diameter)). This range lies above that of the core compaction model
+ (2, 3, and 5 mm). Because the shear stress is proportional to the diameter, the larger default range shifts initiation to lower pool levels
+ than the core model's default would for the same soil and section: at a given pool level it raises the initiation probability, or leaves it
+ unchanged where both are 0 or both are 1.
+
+The model applies the screening-level adjustments common to the compaction models, listed in the
+[Screening-Level Adjustments](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#screening-level-adjustments)
+section of the CLE Common Methods manual, and makes none of its own.
+
+## Node 3: Continuation
+
+*Question:* Does an unfiltered seepage exit exist that allows erosion along the conduit to continue?
+
+The model answers the question with one statement of the user: whether a diaphragm filter surrounds the conduit. With no diaphragm filter, the
+exit is unfiltered and continuation is certain. With a diaphragm filter, the probability that erosion continues past it, $P_{ce}$, is evaluated by
+the shared continuation method from the description of the filter and the base soils upstream of it:
+
+
+
+The continuation method selects, for each base-soil and filter pair, the most informative method whose inputs are available (or certain
+continuation when none is), and the worst base soil governs, as documented in the
+[Method Selection and Governing Base Soil](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/method-selection-and-governing-base-soil)
+chapter of the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual; the value it returns is described in the
+[Node Result](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#node-result) section of that manual.
+With no diaphragm filter the method is not evaluated. Either way, $P_{cont}$ is one value applied at every pool level: the gate is a statement
+about the embankment, not an elevation compared with the pool. This is the compaction-model form of the continuation node described in
+[Node 3: Continuation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-3-continuation)
+of the CLE Common Methods manual. The applicability of the diaphragm-filter question to other filters is requested at marker IN-05 in
+[Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#diaphragm-filter).
+
+## Node 4: Progression — Roof Support
+
+*Question:* Does the material over the enlarging pipe along the conduit hold a roof, so that the pipe stays open?
+
+$P_{roof}$ is the minimum roof-support probability across the embankment materials the pipe passes through, from the table of Fell et al. (2024) given
+in
+[Node 4: Progression — Roof Support](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-4-progression--roof-support)
+of the CLE Common Methods manual. It is the same at every pool level.
+
+## Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling
+
+*Question:* Does the enlarging pipe remain unfilled by material carried in from upstream?
+
+$P_{nf}$ depends only on the embankment type, from the table given in
+[Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-5-progression--no-crack-filling)
+of the CLE Common Methods manual: 1.0 for homogeneous and zoned earthfill, and 0.5 for central-core earth and rockfill.
+
+## Node 6: Progression — No Flow Limitation
+
+*Question:* Does the flow into the enlarging pipe remain unrestricted by upstream seepage-limiting elements?
+
+The model represents no upstream seepage-limiting element for a conduit flaw: it takes no input of upstream facings or cutoff walls, and the
+probability of no flow limitation is fixed at
+
+
+
+at every pool level. No upstream element reduces the SRP of this model, where in the other CLE models an upstream facing or a cutoff wall that
+reaches the flaw does (see
+[Node 6: Progression — No Flow Limitation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-6-progression--no-flow-limitation)
+in the CLE Common Methods manual).
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-12 — Engineering Basis]
+The model takes no flow-limitation credit for a conduit flaw ($P_{nl} = 1.0$ at every pool level), even where an upstream facing or a cutoff wall
+is present. Provide the engineering basis to state here — the literature source or the engineering-judgment attribution. The same question is
+open as item (3) of marker IN-14 in the CLE Common Methods manual, so the two should be resolved together.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): an upstream facing or a cutoff wall does not reliably seal the zone around a conduit that passes through or beneath it, so
+no credit is taken (conservative). Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+## 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)?
+
+$P_{int}$ and $P_{br}$ are the user-specified values, each defaulting to 1.0 and applied at every pool level, as documented in
+[Intervention and Breach](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters#intervention-and-breach) in the
+CLE Common Methods manual.
+
+## SRP Computation
+
+The SRP at each pool level is the product of the eight node probabilities. With the flow-limitation node fixed at 1.0, it is:
+
+
+
+Only $P_{init}(h)$ varies with pool level; the other seven factors are constant. Where the product is zero, the SRP is reported as a negligibly
+small value instead, as described in
+[SRP Computation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#srp-computation) in the CLE Common Methods
+manual. The product is zero at and below the bottom of the conduit; above it, until the hydraulic gradient is large enough for the shear stress
+to reach the critical shear stress in some realizations; wherever the tailwater reaches the headwater, so that there is no net head across the
+pipe; and at every pool level where the user sets the probability of unsuccessful intervention or of breach to 0. Where the tailwater is absent
+or does not rise as fast as the headwater, the curve therefore rises with pool level from that negligible value toward the product of the seven
+constant factors, which it reaches only if every realization initiates; a rising tailwater can flatten or lower it, and it stays negligible at
+every pool level if any constant factor is zero (see and
+[Output and Interpretation](./07-output-and-interpretation.mdx)).
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..d377b727d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+---
+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 conduit compaction model shares the assumptions of the CLE screening family — the product form of the event tree, the cylindrical-pipe
+idealization and its default critical shear stress, the horizontal seepage path at the flaw elevation, and the tabulated progression probabilities
+— listed with their bases in the
+[Assumptions and Limitations](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations) chapter of the
+CLE Common Methods manual. The assumptions of the continuation method are listed in the
+[Assumptions and Limitations](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/assumptions-and-limitations) chapter of the
+Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual. This chapter lists the assumptions specific to a conduit flaw. Each states its engineering
+basis, its effect on results, and the conditions under which it may not hold.
+
+## Flaw
+
+1. **The flaw is a continuous zone of poorly compacted earthfill along the conduit.** Low-stress zones over or beside the conduit, and erosion of
+ embankment soil into the conduit through open joints or defects, are not part of the flaw the model scores.
+ - *Engineering basis:* Scope requested — see marker IN-01 in [Model Overview](./02-model-overview.mdx#intended-use).
+ - *Effect on results:* The flaw probability reflects only the factors that govern how well the fill against the conduit was compacted.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where differential settlement, arching over a rigid conduit, or conduit deterioration is the more likely cause of a
+ flaw; those conditions call for a separate assessment.
+2. **The flaw probability is scored from four conduit factors weighted 3, 2, 2, and 2, with no flaw-continuity stage.** (See
+ [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#factors-and-risk-factors).)
+ - *Engineering basis:* The risk-factor and likelihood-factor scheme of Fell et al. (2024) ; the source of the
+ conduit factors and weights, and the basis for applying no flaw-continuity stage, are requested at marker IN-07 in
+ [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#factors-and-risk-factors).
+ - *Effect on results:* Across its choices, the conduit type and surround moves the weighted sum by up to 9, the compaction adjacent to the
+ conduit by up to 6, and the cutoff collars and the trench details by up to 4 each. The compaction category enters the flaw probability only
+ once, through its weight, unlike the three compaction models that also apply a flaw-continuity probability.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where construction records or inspection give direct evidence of the fill condition along the conduit; the risk
+ team's estimate of the flaw probability then replaces the screening value.
+3. **Cutoff collars raise the likelihood of a flaw, and an unknown collar condition is scored as collars present.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-08 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#cutoff-collars).
+ - *Effect on results:* Collars present, or unknown, add 4 to the weighted sum relative to collars absent, which multiplies the flaw
+ probability by about 2 to 4, depending on where the sum lies on the curve.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Conditions requested with the basis at marker IN-08 in
+ [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#cutoff-collars).
+4. **Unknown selections for the conduit type, the compaction adjacent to the conduit, and the trench details score 3, and the trench factor has no
+ choice scored 1.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-09 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#conduit-trench-details).
+ - *Effect on results:* With every factor Unknown, the weighted sum is 27 and the flaw probability is about $8.2 \times 10^{-3}$, about 55
+ times the value for the most favorable conduit ($1.5 \times 10^{-4}$ at a weighted sum of 11). No conduit scores below a weighted sum of 11.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the conduit, its fill, or its trench can be characterized from drawings or records; the known choice should then
+ be selected.
+5. **The flaw-probability curve for the pool-of-record-plus-20-percent loading condition applies at every pool level.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-10 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#flaw-probability).
+ - *Effect on results:* The flaw probability does not reflect whether the embankment has experienced the pool levels being evaluated.
+ - *When it may not hold:* For first filling, or for pools well beyond the pool of record, where a loading-specific flaw probability may differ.
+6. **An observation of leakage adjacent to the conduit sets the flaw probability to 1.0 without changing the flaw elevation.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment for the override, as for the other CLE models (see
+ [Observation Overrides](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#observation-overrides) in
+ the CLE Common Methods manual); the basis for keeping the flaw elevation is requested at marker IN-11 in
+ [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#flaw-elevation), and the qualifying observation at marker IN-04 in
+ [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#flaw-inputs).
+ - *Effect on results:* With leakage observed, the SRP is governed by the downstream nodes, and initiation still begins at the bottom of the
+ conduit.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the leakage has another explanation, such as seepage along a different path or leakage from the conduit
+ itself.
+7. **The flaw lies at the bottom of the conduit.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-11 in [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#flaw-elevation).
+ - *Effect on results:* Initiation is zero, and the SRP negligible, until the pool rises far enough above the bottom of the conduit for the
+ hydraulic shear stress to reach the lowest critical shear stress, which can be well above the conduit bottom. While the tailwater is below
+ the bottom of the conduit, the bottom of the conduit gives the largest net head across the flaw, but it also measures the seepage path where
+ the embankment section is widest, so the two effects on the hydraulic gradient oppose each other. With the tailwater above the bottom of the
+ conduit, the net head is the headwater minus the tailwater whatever the flaw elevation, as long as that elevation is below the tailwater, and
+ only the path-length effect remains; for a flaw elevation $z$ above the tailwater, the net head would instead be $h - z$.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the poorly compacted zone is known to lie at another elevation along the conduit, such as at its haunches.
+
+## Initiation
+
+8. **The poorly compacted zone is idealized as a cylindrical pipe with a default initial diameter between 5 and 12.5 mm, most likely 10 mm.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* The cylindrical-pipe idealization of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox (see
+ [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx#node-2-initiation)); the basis of the default range is requested at marker IN-06 in
+ [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#initial-pipe-diameter).
+ - *Effect on results:* The shear stress is proportional to the diameter, so the default range, larger than the core compaction model's, places
+ initiation at lower pool levels than the core model's default would.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the opening along the conduit is better represented as a gap or crack against the conduit wall, or where its
+ size can be estimated from cracking analysis; a site-specific diameter distribution should then be supplied.
+9. **The seepage path is measured horizontally across the embankment section at the bottom of the conduit.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* The pipe-length measurement of the Concentrated Leak Erosion Initiation toolbox, as adopted by every compaction model
+ (see [Seepage Path Length](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#seepage-path-length) in the CLE
+ Common Methods manual).
+ - *Effect on results:* For a conduit that crosses the embankment on a skew, the measured path is shorter than the true path along the
+ conduit, so the hydraulic gradient and the initiation probability are overstated, or unchanged where initiation is 0 or 1 (conservative).
+ For a conduit whose grade changes elevation across the section, the single bottom-of-conduit elevation also misstates the net head: taken
+ at the higher upstream invert, it understates the head to the lower exit, so the net effect on the gradient can go either way.
+ - *When it may not hold:* For a conduit that crosses the embankment on a skew, or one whose grade changes elevation across the section; the
+ length along the conduit should then be supplied.
+
+## Continuation and Progression
+
+10. **Continuation is credited only for a diaphragm filter around the conduit; with none, continuation is certain.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment: with no filter credited, the screening takes continuation as certain, to avoid false negatives
+ (conservative; see
+ [Node 3: Continuation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#node-3-continuation)
+ in the CLE Common Methods manual); the treatment of other filters is requested at marker IN-05 in
+ [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#diaphragm-filter).
+ - *Effect on results:* A diaphragm filter multiplies the SRP by the continuation probability at every pool level; without one, the continuation
+ node does not reduce the SRP.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where another filter intercepts the zone along the conduit, or where erosion exits into an open defect of the
+ conduit itself upstream of the diaphragm. Such erosion bypasses the filter, so crediting $P_{ce}$ there is unconservative; the continuation
+ method does not evaluate exits into the conduit.
+11. **No credit is taken for flow limitation by upstream elements.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-12 in
+ [Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx#node-6-progression--no-flow-limitation).
+ - *Effect on results:* An upstream facing or cutoff wall 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; a detailed analysis
+ can then assess the credit.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..057e5ba05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/07-output-and-interpretation.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+---
+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
+
+The model reports the SRP at each evaluated pool level together with the probability of each event-tree node, in the form common to the CLE
+compaction models described in the
+[Output and Interpretation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) chapter of the CLE
+Common Methods manual. This chapter documents what is specific to the conduit compaction model's results and how to read them.
+
+## Pool-Independent Results
+
+- **Flaw probability** — Node 1: the scored flaw probability, or 1.0 when leakage adjacent to the conduit has been observed (see
+ [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx)).
+- **Continuation probability** — Node 3: the continuation method's result when a diaphragm filter surrounds the conduit, otherwise 1.0. The
+ continuation method's own results — the method used for each base soil and the governing base soil — are reported only when a diaphragm filter
+ is present, and are described in the
+ [Output and Interpretation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) chapter of the
+ Continuation (Filter Evaluation) Screening manual.
+- **Roof-support probability** — Node 4: the minimum across the embankment materials.
+- **Crack-filling probability** — Node 5: the probability of no crack filling for the embankment type.
+
+No flow-limitation result is reported: the node is fixed at 1.0 (see
+[Event Tree](./05-event-tree.mdx#node-6-progression--no-flow-limitation)).
+
+## Pool-Dependent Series
+
+- **Pool levels and tailwater** — the headwater elevations at which the tree is evaluated and the tailwater at each, as described in the
+ [Pool-Dependent Series](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#pool-dependent-series)
+ section of the CLE Common Methods manual. Where there is no tailwater, the downstream head above the bottom of the conduit is taken as zero.
+- **Initiation probability** — Node 2 at each pool level.
+- **Unsuccessful-intervention and breach probabilities** — Nodes 7 and 8 at each pool level.
+- **SRP** — the system response curve.
+
+## Supporting Results
+
+- **Flaw assessment** — the likelihood factors of the four conduit factors, the weighted sum $\Sigma$, the raw flaw probability $P_{raw}$, the
+ final flaw probability, and the base-of-flaw elevation (the bottom of the conduit).
+- **Initiation analysis** — at each pool level, the upstream and downstream heads above the bottom of the conduit, the hydraulic gradient, and the
+ mean and 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles of the hydraulic shear stress; the seepage path length; and the low, most likely, and high values of the
+ critical shear stress and initial pipe diameter distributions used, which confirm the critical shear stress and diameter ranges that governed
+ the result.
+
+## Interpreting the System Response Curve
+
+The curve stays negligible from the bottom of the conduit up to the pool level at which the hydraulic shear stress first reaches the lowest
+critical shear stress, then rises with pool level as the hydraulic gradient along the pipe grows, where the tailwater does not offset the
+headwater rise, following the initiation probability. Because every other node is constant, the curve rises toward the product of the constant
+nodes (Node 6 being 1.0),
+
+
+
+and reaches it only where every realization initiates. The node breakdown shows which node sets that ceiling:
+
+- **The flaw probability** enters it at between $1.5 \times 10^{-4}$ and about $4.8 \times 10^{-2}$, or at 1.0 when leakage has
+ been observed. The flaw-assessment results show which conduit factors drive it; the conduit type and surround carries the largest weight.
+- **A diaphragm filter** multiplies it by the continuation probability.
+- **A cohesionless material on the pathway** multiplies it by its roof-support probability, which can lower it by up to two orders of magnitude.
+- **A central-core earth and rockfill embankment** halves it through the crack-filling node.
+- **No upstream element** lowers it: a cutoff wall or upstream facing has no effect on this model's curve.
+
+The pool level at which the curve begins to rise, and how steeply it rises, are set by the critical shear stress and the initial pipe diameter
+relative to the hydraulic gradient through the section at the bottom of the conduit. A curve that levels off below the ceiling reflects
+realizations that do not initiate within the evaluated pool range, as discussed in
+[Reading the Node Breakdown](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#reading-the-node-breakdown)
+in the CLE Common Methods manual. A rising tailwater that reduces the net head across the pipe can flatten or lower the curve over that range.
+
+## Checking the Result
+
+The checks of
+[Checking the Result](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#checking-the-result) in
+the CLE Common Methods manual apply. For this model in particular:
+
+- **Lower end** — the SRP is negligible at every pool level at or below the bottom of the conduit, because there is no upstream head above the
+ flaw. A curve that never rises within the pool range can point to a bottom-of-conduit elevation on a different datum from the headwater
+ series.
+- **Upper bound** — the SRP never exceeds $\mathrm{SRP}_{max}$ above, with no flow-limitation factor in the product, except where
+ $\mathrm{SRP}_{max}$ is zero, when the reported SRP is the negligible floor value.
+- **Flaw probability** — without a leakage observation, the reported flaw probability can be reproduced from the four likelihood factors with the
+ weighted sum and the curve of [Flaw Assessment](./04-flaw-assessment.mdx#flaw-probability); it lies between $1.5 \times 10^{-4}$ and about
+ $4.8 \times 10^{-2}$.
+- **Continuation** — a continuation probability of 1.0 is expected when no diaphragm filter is stated. With a diaphragm filter stated present,
+ a value of 1.0 means that the continuation method itself returned certain continuation; the governing method reported in its
+ [Node Result](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#node-result) section shows why.
+
+## Screening Results Relative to Detailed Analysis
+
+The model is a screening tool. Its result indicates whether concentrated leak erosion along a conduit warrants detailed analysis; it is not a
+substitute for one. The screening simplifications — the four-factor flaw score, the bottom-of-conduit flaw elevation, the default initial pipe
+diameter and critical shear stress, and the absence of flow-limitation credit — are chosen to avoid false negatives. Where the result is
+significant to a decision, the governing nodes should be re-examined with site-specific information, such as construction records of the conduit
+backfill, inspection of the conduit and its outlet, and erodibility testing of the adjacent fill, and 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-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..213f36863
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md
@@ -0,0 +1,193 @@
+# Input Needed — Concentrated Leak Erosion Conduit Compaction 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-06 and IN-12 repeat questions also open in the CLE Common
+Methods manual (its IN-11 and IN-14 item 3); answer them once for both documents.
+
+---
+
+## IN-01 — Applicability — `02-model-overview.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The scope of the flaw. The model scores only a continuous zone of poorly
+compacted fill adjacent to the conduit; the typical event tree for a crack along an embedded
+structure also names a low-stress zone (differential settlement, arching over the conduit),
+and erosion into a defective conduit is a further conduit-related mechanism.
+
+**Needed:** Whether a low-stress zone or hydraulic fracture along the conduit is intended to
+be screened with this model, with another model, or not at the screening level, and whether
+erosion into a defective conduit is outside the model's scope.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The model screens poor compaction adjacent to the conduit only;
+low-stress zones and erosion into the conduit are separate failure modes it does not address.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-02 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** Which soil the core soil classification describes for this model (it selects
+the default critical shear stress range): the earthfill adjacent to the conduit, or the core.
+
+**Needed:** The soil the user should classify, and how to choose when the fill adjacent to
+the conduit differs from the core.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The earthfill adjacent to the conduit, since that is the soil
+whose walls the concentrated leak erodes.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-03 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** Fuller definitions of the conduit-factor categories.
+
+**Needed:** (1) Whether "round pipe not encased" includes corrugated metal and other flexible
+pipes, and which choice applies to conduits not listed (cast-in-place rectangular or
+horseshoe conduits, concrete box culverts); (2) whether "no formal compaction" also covers
+poor compaction in very thick lifts without moisture control; (3) the trench widths, depths,
+and side slopes that separate the wide, medium, and narrow trench categories (only the wide
+category has a stated slope limit, flatter than 1H:1V). Cite the defining table of Fell et
+al. (2024) if the categories come from it.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** "Round pipe not encased" includes corrugated metal pipe; "no
+formal compaction" covers poor compaction with very thick lifts and no moisture control; the
+narrow, deep trench is one backfilled with soil.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-04 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** What observation qualifies as "leakage adjacent to the conduit" for the flaw
+override.
+
+**Needed:** The qualifying observations (for example, seepage emerging along the outside of
+the conduit at its outlet, wet areas over the conduit alignment on the downstream slope, flow
+carrying fines), and whether leakage into the conduit through its joints qualifies.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-05 — Applicability — `03-input-parameters.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The model recognizes only a diaphragm filter around the conduit as a filter on
+the failure pathway.
+
+**Needed:** Whether the user should answer yes for other filters that intercept the zone along
+the conduit (a chimney or blanket filter the conduit passes through, a filter envelope around
+the downstream portion of the conduit), or whether those are intended to be left uncredited.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-06 — Engineering Basis — `03-input-parameters.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The default initial pipe diameter (triangular: low 5 mm, most likely 10 mm,
+high 12.5 mm), larger than the core compaction model's default (2, 3, 5 mm).
+
+**Needed:** Literature source or engineering-judgment attribution, including why the conduit
+range is larger. Same question as CLE Common Methods IN-11.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-07 — Bibliography — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The four conduit factors and their risk factors (3 for the conduit type and
+surround; 2 each for cutoff collars, compaction adjacent to the conduit, and trench details),
+and the absence of a flaw-continuity stage in this model.
+
+**Needed:** The table of Fell et al. (2024) that gives the factors and weights for poor
+compaction adjacent to a conduit, or the engineering-judgment attribution; and the basis for
+applying no flaw-continuity stage, where the core, wall or cliff, and foundation or abutment
+compaction models apply one.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-08 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The cutoff-collar likelihood factors (Absent 1, Present 3, Unknown 3).
+
+**Needed:** Why collars present raise the likelihood of a flaw, why no intermediate value is
+used, and why Unknown scores the same as Present. Source table or engineering-judgment
+attribution. Also the site conditions under which the collar scores should not be relied on
+(the "When it may not hold" line of Assumption 3 in `06-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx`).
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** Fill around cutoff collars is difficult to compact, so collars
+increase the likelihood of a poorly compacted zone; Unknown takes the unfavorable value so a
+missing record does not lower the screening result. The scores may not hold where the fill
+around the collars is known to have been compacted to the standard of the rest of the fill.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-09 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The likelihood factors of the conduit type and surround (1, 2, 3, 4; Unknown 3),
+the compaction adjacent to the conduit (1, 2, 3, 4; Unknown 3), and the trench details (wide 2,
+medium 3, narrow 4; Unknown 3).
+
+**Needed:** The source table of Fell et al. (2024) or the engineering-judgment attribution,
+including the Unknown score of 3 for each factor and why the trench factor has no choice
+scored 1.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-10 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The flaw-probability curve (weighted sum 11, 14, 17, 20, 28, 36 →
+1.5e-4, 3e-4, 6e-4, 2e-3, 1e-2, 8e-2), recorded in the model as the curve for the
+"pool of record plus 20 percent" loading condition and applied at every pool level.
+
+**Needed:** (1) The table or figure of Fell et al. (2024) giving the six points; (2) a
+definition of the "pool of record plus 20 percent" loading condition; (3) the basis for using
+that one loading condition's curve at every pool level when the source may tabulate others
+(below the pool of record, first filling).
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-11 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-assessment.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** (1) Placing the flaw at the bottom of the conduit rather than at its haunches or
+springline; (2) keeping it there when leakage is observed, where the core compaction model
+moves its flaw to the observed leakage elevation.
+
+**Needed:** Literature source or engineering-judgment attribution.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The bottom of the conduit is the lowest elevation a flaw along the
+conduit can occupy, so initiation can begin at the lowest pool and the net head is largest
+there (the seepage path is also longest there, partly offsetting it); leakage along a conduit
+follows the conduit, so its emergence point does not locate the flaw better than the conduit.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-12 — Engineering Basis — `05-event-tree.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** No flow-limitation credit for a conduit flaw (probability of no flow limitation
+fixed at 1.0), even where an upstream facing or cutoff wall is present.
+
+**Needed:** Literature source or engineering-judgment attribution. Same question as CLE Common
+Methods IN-14 item (3).
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** An upstream facing or cutoff wall does not reliably seal the zone
+around a conduit that passes through or beneath it, so no credit is taken (conservative).
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
diff --git a/src/docConfig.js b/src/docConfig.js
index 3aa150ad4..9ee9e3ca0 100644
--- a/src/docConfig.js
+++ b/src/docConfig.js
@@ -380,8 +380,9 @@ const docs = [
category: 'web-applications',
software: 'system-response',
doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening',
- doc_name: 'CLE Conduit Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual',
- active: false,
+ doc_name: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Conduit Compaction Screening Technical Reference Manual',
+ sidebar_label: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Conduit Compaction Screening',
+ active: true,
draft: true,
},
{
diff --git a/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/bib.json b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-screening/v1.0/bib.json
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e5c80cf3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-conduit-compaction-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"
+ }
+]