diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f23836041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/00-document-info.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+title: Document Info
+reportDate: October 2026
+reportType: Technical Reference
+reportTitle: Concentrated Leak Erosion Desiccation Screening Technical Reference Manual
+reportSubTitle: System Response Library
+reportAuthors: ['Adam Gohs, P.E.']
+reportAbstract: Technical reference documenting the concentrated leak erosion (CLE) desiccation 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 transverse crack formed by desiccation (drying and shrinkage) of the soil at the embankment crest. The probability that a continuous desiccation crack exists is scored from three site factors — the surface layer over the core, the climate or the measured net evaporation, and the plasticity of the crest soils — using risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring. The depth of the crack is taken from tabulated values by climate, soil, and surface layer, and the bottom of the crack sets the pool level above which concentrated leak erosion can begin. The remaining nodes of the eight-node event tree follow the methods shared by the CLE screening models. The model is deterministic, except that the shared continuation method may estimate the continuation node by sampling, and it applies simplifications appropriate for screening-level risk analysis.
+reportSubjectTerms: ['CLE', 'Concentrated Leak Erosion', 'Desiccation Cracking', 'Crest Cracking', 'Screening', 'Event Tree', 'System Response Probability', 'System Response Curve', 'Risk Factor', 'Likelihood Factor', 'Net Evaporation', 'Crack Depth']
+citationGuide: 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, Concentrated Leak Erosion Desiccation 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-desiccation-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b723c93e0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/00-version-history.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+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-desiccation-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/01-preface.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..1bcfcd20f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-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) desiccation 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 transverse
+crack that forms when the soil at the embankment crest dries and shrinks. 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 desiccation model is one of eight CLE screening models. The eight share an event-tree structure, an
+initiation treatment for cracks open at the crest, failure-pathway rules for the continuation and progression nodes, and the form of their results,
+and seven of the eight, this model among them, share a scoring scheme for flaw probabilities.
+Those shared methods are documented once, in the
+[Concentrated Leak Erosion 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),
+and the continuation node is evaluated by the shared 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 desiccation cracking: the site factors scored for the probability of a continuous crack, the tabulated
+crack depth and the bottom-of-crack elevation that follows from it, the observation that overrides the scored probability, the soils in which the
+mechanism does not apply, and how the shared nodes are populated for this mechanism. Each section links the chapter of the shared manuals that
+documents the common method it relies on.
+
+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 a detailed assessment, and its place among the CLE screening models.
+- **[Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx)** — The desiccation-specific inputs — the surface layer over the core, the climate, the measured
+ net evaporation, the crest soils, and the cracking observation — and a summary of the inputs shared with the other CLE models.
+- **[Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx)** — The three scored factors, their likelihood factors, the weighted sum, the curve that converts
+ it to a flaw probability, the lower threshold, the observation override, and the inapplicable-mechanism case.
+- **[Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx)** — The tabulated crack depths by climate, soil, and surface layer, their interpolation by measured net
+ evaporation, and the bottom-of-crack elevation passed to the downstream nodes.
+- **[Event Tree](./06-event-tree.mdx)** — How each of the eight event-tree nodes is populated for desiccation cracking at each pool level, and how
+ the SRP is computed.
+- **[Assumptions and Limitations](./07-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx)** — Each desiccation-specific modeling assumption with its engineering
+ basis, its effect on results, and the conditions under which it may not hold.
+- **[Output and Interpretation](./08-output-and-interpretation.mdx)** — The flaw-assessment results the model reports, how to read the system
+ response curve for this mechanism, and the role of screening results relative to detailed analysis.
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..c849b8b16
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/02-model-overview.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+---
+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 CLE desiccation screening model computes a system response curve for concentrated leak erosion through a desiccation crack at the embankment
+crest, 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 such a crack, given that pool level.
+
+Desiccation cracking is the opening of cracks in the soil near the crest as it dries and shrinks. Where a desiccation crack runs transversely
+across the crest and is continuous from the upstream face to the downstream face, it opens a path through the embankment from the crest down to
+the bottom of the crack. When the pool rises above the bottom of the crack, water flows through it and can erode its walls. The failure mode then
+proceeds as for any concentrated leak: the erosion must find an unfiltered exit, the enlarging pipe must stay open and be neither filled nor starved
+of flow, intervention must fail, and an uncontrolled release of the impounded water must follow.
+
+## Intended Use
+
+The model is a screening-level assessment of concentrated leak erosion through desiccation cracking at the crest. Like the other CLE screening
+models, it makes simplifying and generally conservative assumptions with two goals
+(see the [Model Overview](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/model-overview#intended-use) of the CLE
+Common Methods manual):
+
+- **Preventing false negatives** — The model is designed to avoid underestimating risk at the screening level, so that embankments with a
+ potential desiccation-cracking concern are flagged for further analysis.
+- **Reducing input burden** — Three qualitative site descriptions — the surface layer over the core, the climate, and the soil classes at the crest
+ — stand in for an assessment of crack occurrence and crack depth from site investigation. A measured average annual net evaporation may replace
+ the climate description where it is available.
+
+The model is not intended for detailed or semi-quantitative risk assessments (see
+[Comparison with Detailed Models](#comparison-with-detailed-models)).
+
+## 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 a desiccation-specific flaw assessment:
+
+1. **Flaw assessment** — The model scores three site factors on a likelihood scale of 1 to 4: the surface layer over the core, the climate (or
+ the measured net evaporation), and the plasticity of the soils the crack would cross. The weighted sum of the scores is converted to the
+ probability that a continuous desiccation crack exists. A weighted sum below 13 gives a zero probability, and a report that continuous transverse
+ cracking caused by desiccation has been observed sets the probability to 1.0 (see [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx)). From the same
+ descriptions the model takes a tabulated crack depth and computes the bottom-of-crack elevation (see [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx)).
+
+2. **Pathway resolution** — From the user's description of the embankment along the crack, the model takes the top of the first filter the
+ failure pathway meets, the soils along the pathway, the embankment type, and the upstream seepage-limiting elements, following the conventions
+ for cracks open at the crest
+ (see [The Failure Pathway](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#the-failure-pathway)
+ in the CLE Common Methods manual).
+
+3. **Event-tree assembly** — At each headwater level the model multiplies the eight node probabilities. When the mechanism applies, initiation is
+ certain once the pool rises above the bottom of the crack and zero at or below it; when every listed crest soil is a clean or nearly clean sand
+ or gravel, it is zero at every pool level; continuation, roof support, and flow limitation follow the pool level relative to the top
+ of the filter and the top of any upstream wall (see [Event Tree](./06-event-tree.mdx)).
+
+Every node is evaluated directly from the inputs and tabulated values. The model performs no Monte Carlo simulation of its own; the continuation
+node is the only one that may be a Monte Carlo estimate, when the shared continuation method evaluates the filter by sampling
+(see [Event Tree](./06-event-tree.mdx#node-3-continuation)).
+
+## Physics Basis
+
+The model 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
+ [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)
+ in the CLE Common Methods manual). The desiccation factors express that a crack is more likely where the crest is unprotected, the climate is
+ drier, and the soil is more plastic (see [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx)).
+- **Tabulated desiccation crack depths** by climate, soil, and surface layer, adapted from Fell et al. (2024)
+ (see [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx)).
+- **The headwater gate at the bottom of an open crest crack** for initiation, as documented in
+ [Crest-Crack Models: Headwater Gate](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate)
+ in the CLE Common Methods manual.
+- **Tabulated roof-support, crack-filling, and flow-limitation probabilities** for the progression nodes , and
+ **filter evaluation** for the continuation node through the shared continuation method, both applied as documented in
+ [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) in
+ the CLE Common Methods manual.
+
+## Comparison with Detailed Models
+
+The detailed counterpart of the screening model is an assessment of desiccation cracking and concentrated leak erosion by the internal-erosion
+probability methods of Fell et al. (2024) applied in full, by the risk team, with site investigation of the
+crest. summarizes the differences.
+
+
+
+The screening model does not estimate the width of the crack. Crack width enters a detailed shear stress analysis of initiation, but the screening
+model's initiation gate depends only on the bottom-of-crack elevation, so no width is needed.
+
+## Place Among the CLE Screening Models
+
+The desiccation model is one of the four crest-crack models of the CLE family, together with cross-valley differential settlement, differential
+settlement adjacent to a wall or cliff, and frost cracking (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). Its flaw is a transverse crack open at the crest, and it shares with the other crest-crack models the headwater initiation
+gate, the pool-dependent failure-pathway gates, and the form of its results. It differs from them in its flaw assessment:
+
+- Its three factors describe the crest surface, the climate, and the crest soils rather than settlement or geometry.
+- Its crack depth comes from a table by climate, soil, and surface layer rather than from the settlement of the embankment.
+- It is one of the two models, with frost cracking, that apply a lower threshold to the weighted sum and that treat the mechanism as inapplicable
+ when every crest soil is a clean or nearly clean sand or gravel.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..a14509b4a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/03-input-parameters.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+---
+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
+
+This chapter documents the inputs specific to the desiccation model — the five flaw inputs that describe the crest — and summarizes the inputs the
+model shares with the other CLE screening models, which are documented in full in
+[Common Input Parameters](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) of the CLE Common Methods
+manual. The model takes no distribution inputs: every input is a single value, a selection, or a list of soil classes.
+
+## Flaw Inputs
+
+The flaw inputs describe the crest of the embankment where a desiccation crack would form
+(). They set the probability of a continuous crack (see
+[Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx)) and its depth (see [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx)).
+
+n', '—', '—'],
+ ['selection', 'selection', 'mm', 'USCS classes', 'yes or no'],
+ ['One of three surfaces', 'One of four climates', '0 or greater', 'Any of the fifteen accepted classes', 'Yes or no'],
+ ['No road or pathway', 'Temperate', 'Not supplied', 'Unknown', 'No'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+### Surface layer over the core
+
+The surface layer is what covers the core soil at the crest. It sets the surface-layer likelihood factor and selects the row of the crack-depth
+table. The choices are:
+
+- **Paved** — a concrete or otherwise sealed roadway or pathway over the core. It is the least likely condition for a desiccation crack (likelihood
+ factor 1) and takes the crack depths tabulated for a gravel roadway.
+- **Gravel road** — a gravel roadway over the core (likelihood factor 2.5), with the crack depths tabulated for a gravel roadway.
+- **No road or pathway** — the core soil is exposed at the crest, or carries no roadway or pathway (likelihood factor 4), with the crack depths
+ tabulated for a crest with no road or pathway.
+
+There is no Unknown choice. When no surface layer is given, the model takes a crest with no road or pathway, the most crack-prone of the three:
+it carries the highest surface-layer likelihood factor and the deeper of the two crack-depth rows. Its basis is requested together with that of
+the climate default under [Climate](#climate).
+
+The model sets no flaw probability to zero on account of the surface layer alone, so a paved crest lowers the flaw probability without ruling
+the mechanism out in every case. In a seasonal or temperate climate, however, a paved crest always falls below the lower threshold of the scoring,
+so in practice the mechanism is ruled out there; in an arid or monsoonal climate it can reach the threshold, depending on the crest soil (see
+[Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#lower-threshold)).
+
+### Climate
+
+The climate describes the precipitation and temperature regime at the dam. It sets the climate likelihood factor and selects the climate of the
+crack-depth table, unless a measured net evaporation is supplied, in which case the climate selection is not used. The choices are:
+
+- **Arid** — less than 10 in of annual rainfall and high summer temperatures (likelihood factor 4).
+- **Monsoonal** — monsoonal or other distinct wet and dry periods, with high summer temperatures (likelihood factor 3).
+- **Seasonal** — annual rainfall greater than 20 in, with no prolonged hot, dry periods (likelihood factor 2).
+- **Temperate** — rainfall distributed uniformly throughout the year (likelihood factor 1).
+
+There is no Unknown choice. When no climate is given, the model takes a temperate climate, the least crack-prone of the four: it carries the
+lowest climate likelihood factor and crack depths no deeper than those of any other climate. This default is not conservative — for the other
+inputs given, it gives a flaw probability no higher and a bottom of crack no lower than any other climate would — so a result computed with the
+climate defaulted can understate both the flaw probability and the crack depth. When a measured net evaporation is supplied, the climate
+selection, given or defaulted, is not used.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-01 — Definition]
+The four climate descriptions above need a source and a rule for sites they do not clearly cover. As stated, the descriptions overlap and leave
+gaps: a site with 10 to 20 in of annual rainfall and no distinct wet and dry periods fits none of them, and a site with less than 10 in of rainfall
+and distinct wet and dry periods fits two. Cite the table of Fell et al. (2024) from which the descriptions are taken, and state how the user should
+classify a site that falls between them (for example, by selecting the drier category, or by supplying a measured net evaporation instead).
+:::
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-13 — Engineering Basis]
+The defaults of the two selections require an engineering basis. When no surface layer is given the model takes a crest with no road or pathway,
+the most crack-prone surface; when no climate is given it takes a temperate climate, the least crack-prone climate (likelihood factor 1, and
+crack depths no deeper than those of any other climate). Provide the engineering basis or the engineering-judgment attribution for each default
+— in particular for the temperate default, which is the least conservative of the four climates — or state that both selections are always to be
+supplied and the defaults are not to be relied on.
+:::
+
+### Average annual net evaporation
+
+The average annual net evaporation $E_n$ is an optional measured alternative to the climate selection, in millimeters regardless of the length unit
+used for elevations. When it is supplied, it replaces the climate selection in both places the climate is used: the climate likelihood factor is
+interpolated from it (see [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#climate)), and the crack depth is interpolated between the depths of the
+four climates (see [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx#crack-depth-from-measured-net-evaporation)). It must be zero or positive. A measured value
+suits a site whose climate falls between the categories, or where a published evaporation record is available.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-02 — Definition]
+State how the average annual net evaporation is to be determined — in particular whether it is the annual potential (pan or lake) evaporation less
+the annual rainfall, and over what period of record it is averaged — and cite the source that defines it for use with the desiccation crack-depth
+tables.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): the annual evaporation less the annual rainfall, averaged over the period of record, as used by Fell et al. (2024) to
+characterize the climate in its desiccation crack-depth tables. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+### Crest soil classifications
+
+The crest soil classifications are the classes in the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) of every material, other than a drain or filter,
+that the crack would cross at the crest. Only the fifteen classes named below are accepted. Other dual symbols, such as SC-SM, GC-GM, SW-SM, or
+GW-GC, and the organic soils have no entry of their own, so the user has to map each such soil to one of the fifteen before entering it. The
+classifications set the soil likelihood factor and select the column of the crack-depth table:
+
+- **Plastic and silty soils** — the nine classes SM, GM, ML, SC, GC, CL-ML, CL, MH, and CH are scored, and the most crack-prone of the listed soils
+ governs (see [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#crest-soil)).
+- **Clean and nearly clean sands and gravels** — the six classes SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP are accepted in the list but are not scored,
+ because desiccation cracking is not modeled in them. When every listed soil is one of these six, the mechanism does not apply (see
+ [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#inapplicable-mechanism)).
+- **Unknown** — leaving the list empty states that the crest soils are unknown. The model then assigns an intermediate soil score (see
+ [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#crest-soil)).
+
+### Continuous desiccation cracking observed
+
+This input reports an observation of the crack itself. It is answered yes only when all three of the following hold: transverse cracking has been
+observed at the crest, the cracking is attributed to desiccation, and it is judged continuous across the crest. A yes sets the flaw probability to
+1.0 (see [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#observation-override)); it does not change the crack depth. The default, no, takes no
+observation into account.
+
+## Shared Inputs
+
+The model also takes the following inputs in the form documented for the crest-crack models in
+[Common Input Parameters](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) of the CLE Common Methods
+manual. None of them is modified for desiccation cracking.
+
+- **Hydraulic loading** — the headwater series and the optional tailwater series (see
+ [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 model
+ reports the tailwater with its results but does not use it.
+- **Crest elevation** $z_c$ and **embankment type** (see
+ [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
+ crack depth is measured down from the crest elevation, and the embankment type sets the crack-filling probability. The model takes no
+ slope-segment description of the embankment section.
+- **Failure-pathway inputs** — the top-of-filter elevation $z_{tf}$, the full-pathway and below-filter roof materials, and the continuation inputs
+ of the shared continuation method (see
+ [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) and the
+ [Input Parameters](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/input-parameters) chapter of the Continuation (Filter
+ Evaluation) manual). The below-filter roof materials are the materials the user describes along the below-filter pathway, cut at the bottom of
+ the crack. The user therefore has to work out the bottom-of-crack elevation — the crest elevation less the tabulated crack depth of
+ [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx#bottom-of-crack-elevation) — before entering them.
+- **Upstream seepage-limiting elements** and the **top-of-wall elevation** $z_{tw}$ (see
+ [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)).
+- **Probabilities of unsuccessful intervention and of breach**, each defaulting to 1.0 (see
+ [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 model takes none of the initiation material inputs of the compaction models — no critical shear stress, initial pipe diameter, or seepage path
+length — because its initiation node is a headwater gate rather than a shear stress analysis.
+
+## Units
+
+Elevations — the headwater, tailwater, crest, top-of-filter, and top-of-wall elevations — are on one common datum and in one length unit, as
+described in [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) of the
+CLE Common Methods manual. Two quantities carry fixed units: the net evaporation is in millimeters, and the tabulated crack depths are in feet. The
+crack depth is subtracted from the crest elevation without conversion (see [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx#bottom-of-crack-elevation)), so the
+bottom-of-crack elevation is correct only when elevations are in feet.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-03 — Applicability]
+The tabulated crack depths are in feet and are subtracted from the crest elevation with no unit conversion, so a crest elevation in meters
+produces a bottom-of-crack elevation that is wrong by the factor between the two units. State the length unit the model is intended to be used in,
+and the instruction to give a user working in SI units. This is the desiccation-model instance of the family-wide question raised at marker IN-01
+of the CLE Common Methods manual.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): the model is intended for elevations in feet; a user working in SI units converts the elevations to feet before running
+the model. Confirm or replace.
+:::
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-probability.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-probability.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..dceef18cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/04-flaw-probability.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,275 @@
+---
+title: Flaw Probability
+---
+
+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 Probability
+
+Node 1 of the event tree is the probability $P_{flaw}$ that a continuous transverse desiccation crack exists across the crest. The model estimates
+it by the risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of Fell et al. (2024) , which seven of the CLE
+screening models share and which is documented in
+[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)
+of the CLE Common Methods manual. This chapter documents the desiccation-specific parts of that scoring: the three factors and their scores, the
+curve that converts the weighted sum to a probability, the lower threshold, the observation override, and the case in which the mechanism does not
+apply. The scored probability is used directly; the model applies no flaw-continuity stage.
+
+## Factors
+
+The model scores three factors, each on a likelihood scale on which 1 is the least likely condition for a continuous desiccation crack and 4 the
+most likely ().
+
+
+
+Across their full ranges, the surface layer can move the weighted sum by up to 9, the climate by up to 6, and the crest soil by up to 3. A
+particular change can still move it less than a change of another factor: going from a gravel road to no road or pathway adds 4.5, less than the
+6 added by going from a temperate to an arid climate. The climate likelihood factor can take any value between 1 and 4 when it is interpolated
+from a measured net evaporation; the other two take only the tabulated values.
+
+### Surface layer
+
+The surface-layer likelihood factor $LF_s$ is 1 for a paved crest, 2.5 for a gravel road, and 4 for a crest with no road or pathway (see
+[Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#surface-layer-over-the-core)).
+
+### Climate
+
+When no net evaporation is supplied, the climate likelihood factor $LF_{cl}$ is 4 for an arid climate, 3 for a monsoonal climate, 2 for a seasonal
+climate, and 1 for a temperate climate (see [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#climate)).
+
+When a measured average annual net evaporation $E_n$ is supplied, $LF_{cl}$ is interpolated linearly in $E_n$ between the points of
+, and takes the end value beyond the tabulated range.
+
+
+
+The result is a stepped relationship with short transitions:
+
+- $LF_{cl} = 1$ for a net evaporation of 425 mm or less.
+- $LF_{cl}$ rises linearly from 1 to 2 between 425 and 450 mm, and is 2 from 450 to 900 mm.
+- $LF_{cl}$ rises linearly from 2 to 3 between 900 and 925 mm, and is 3 from 925 to 1500 mm.
+- $LF_{cl}$ steps from 3 to 4 at 1500 mm and is 4 above it.
+
+A net evaporation within one of the two short transitions therefore gives a fractional climate score, for example 1.5 at 437.5 mm.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-04 — Engineering Basis]
+The net-evaporation relationship of requires an engineering basis: the band
+boundaries (425 to 450 mm, 900 to 925 mm, and 1500 mm), the linear transitions over the first two boundaries against the abrupt step at the third,
+the end values held below 175 mm and above 2000 mm, and the equivalence of each band with one climate category. Cite the table of Fell et al.
+(2024) that relates net evaporation to the climate categories, or provide the engineering-judgment attribution, and state why the transition at
+1500 mm is abrupt while the other two are gradual.
+:::
+
+### Crest soil
+
+Each listed crest soil class is scored per . The soil likelihood factor $LF_{cs}$
+is the highest score among the scored classes in the list, so the most crack-prone soil the crack would cross governs. When the list is empty — the
+crest soils are unknown — $LF_{cs} = 2$.
+
+
+
+The six clean and nearly clean sands and gravels — SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP — do not appear in the table. When they are listed with
+scored classes they are passed over; when they are the only classes listed, the mechanism does not apply (see
+[Inapplicable Mechanism](#inapplicable-mechanism)).
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-05 — Engineering Basis]
+The Unknown crest-soil score of 2 requires an engineering basis. It is the score of a silty or lean clay and lies below the scores of a
+high-plasticity silt (3) and a fat clay (4), so an unknown crest soil is scored as less crack-prone than a known fat clay core; the same score also
+selects the crack depths of and
+ in [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx). Cite the
+source of the value, or provide the engineering-judgment attribution, and state why an intermediate rather than the most crack-prone score is
+adopted for an unknown soil at the screening level.
+:::
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-06 — Engineering Basis]
+The factor scores of this section require an engineering basis: the risk factors (3 for the surface layer, 2 for the climate, 1 for the crest
+soil), the surface-layer scores (1, 2.5, 4), the climate scores (4, 3, 2, 1), and the crest-soil scores of
+. Cite the table of Fell et al. (2024) from which each is taken, or provide the
+engineering-judgment attribution for any value that is adapted rather than taken directly — in particular the gravel-road score of 2.5.
+:::
+
+## Weighted Sum
+
+The three scores combine into the weighted sum of the common scheme (see
+[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) in the CLE Common Methods
+manual), here
+
+
+
+The weighted sum ranges from 6 (paved crest, temperate climate, least crack-prone soil) to 24 (no road or pathway, arid climate, fat clay). A
+paved crest limits it to at most 15.
+
+## Flaw Probability from the Weighted Sum
+
+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
+[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)
+of the CLE Common Methods manual. A weighted sum above 24 cannot occur, so the upper end of the curve is reached only at the most adverse
+combination of all three factors.
+
+-3', '1 × 10-2', '1 × 10-1', '0.5'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+### Lower threshold
+
+A weighted sum below 13 gives a raw flaw probability of zero; a weighted sum of exactly 13 takes the first tabulated value, 1 × 10-3.
+This is the lower-threshold rule of the common scheme (see
+[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)).
+No single factor score forces the probability to zero on its own. Apart from the inapplicable-mechanism rule — every listed crest soil a clean or
+nearly clean sand or gravel (see [Inapplicable Mechanism](#inapplicable-mechanism)), which also sets the raw flaw probability to zero — the
+threshold is the only rule that does. Whether a crest reaches the threshold depends first on its surface layer:
+
+- **On a paved crest**, the weighted sum is 13 or more only when $2\,LF_{cl} + LF_{cs} \ge 10$ — for example, an arid climate with a soil scored 2
+ or more (including an unknown soil, scored 2), or a monsoonal climate with a fat clay. A paved crest in an arid climate with a soil scored 1 has a
+ weighted sum of 12 and falls below the threshold. A paved crest in a seasonal or temperate climate always falls below the threshold.
+- **On a gravel road**, the weighted sum is below 13 only when $2\,LF_{cl} + LF_{cs} < 5.5$. With the climate given as a category, these are a
+ temperate climate with a soil scored 1, 2, or 3 (sums of 10.5, 11.5, and 12.5) and a seasonal climate with a soil scored 1 (a sum of 12.5). A
+ measured net evaporation within the 425 to 450 mm or the 900 to 925 mm transition gives a fractional climate score, and some of those values also
+ fall below 13; the general condition governs.
+- **On a crest with no road or pathway**, the weighted sum is at least 15 and always reaches the threshold.
+
+A raw flaw probability of zero is carried into the event tree as the negligibly small value 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) of the CLE Common Methods
+manual, unless the observation override applies.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-07 — Engineering Basis]
+The weighted-sum curve of (13, 16, 20, 24 → 1 × 10-3,
+1 × 10-2, 1 × 10-1, 0.5) and the lower threshold at a weighted sum of 13 require an engineering basis. Cite the figure or
+table of Fell et al. (2024) from which they are taken, or provide the engineering-judgment attribution, including why the probability is zero
+rather than continuing to fall below a weighted sum of 13. The interpolation form is the family-wide question of marker IN-03 of the CLE Common
+Methods manual.
+:::
+
+## Observation Override
+
+When continuous desiccation cracking is reported as observed — transverse cracking at the crest, attributed to desiccation, and judged continuous
+(see [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#continuous-desiccation-cracking-observed)) — the flaw probability is 1.0 whatever the factors
+score, including when the weighted sum is below the threshold. This is the observation override of the common scheme (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) of the CLE
+Common Methods manual). The flaw probability is then
+
+
+
+The override sets only the flaw probability. The crack depth, and with it the pool level at which initiation begins, is still the tabulated value
+of [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx); the observation does not supply a measured depth.
+
+## Inapplicable Mechanism
+
+When every listed crest soil is one of the six clean or nearly clean sands and gravels, the model treats desiccation cracking as unable to occur in
+the crest (see
+[Inapplicable Mechanism](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#inapplicable-mechanism) of the
+CLE Common Methods manual):
+
+- the surface-layer and climate likelihood factors are still evaluated and reported, but the soil likelihood factor, the weighted sum, and the
+ raw flaw probability are set to zero;
+- the flaw probability is negligibly small;
+- the observation override is not consulted, because cracking observed in such a crest cannot be desiccation cracking;
+- the crack depth is zero, so the bottom of the crack is at the crest, and initiation is zero at every pool level.
+
+The SRP is then negligible at every pool level. An empty list is not this case: it states that the crest soils are unknown and is scored as
+described under [Crest soil](#crest-soil).
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-08 — Engineering Basis]
+The treatment of the six classes SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP as soils in which desiccation cracking does not occur — passed over when listed
+with other soils, and making the mechanism inapplicable when listed alone — requires an engineering basis. Provide the literature source or the
+engineering-judgment attribution, and state whether the silty classes SM, GM, and ML, which can also be non-plastic, are deliberately retained
+with the lowest score.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): clean and nearly clean sands and gravels, with less than 12 percent fines, have too little plasticity to shrink on drying
+and hold open a crack, so a crest built only of them cannot develop a desiccation crack. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+## Worked Examples
+
+ applies the scoring to four crests described by their climate category, with no
+observation reported.
+
+s, LFcl, LFcs' }, { value: 'Σ' }, { value: 'Pflaw' }]]}
+ columns={[
+ ['Gravel road, seasonal, CL', 'Paved, arid, CH', 'No road or pathway, arid, CH', 'Gravel road, temperate, ML'],
+ ['2.5, 2, 2', '1, 4, 4', '4, 4, 4', '2.5, 1, 1'],
+ ['13.5', '15', '24', '10.5'],
+ ['1.47 × 10-3', '4.64 × 10-3', '0.5', 'Negligible'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+In the first example the weighted sum of 13.5 lies between the tabulated points 13 and 16, so
+
+
+
+and $P_{flaw} = 10^{-2.833} = 1.47 \times 10^{-3}$. The second example is the most adverse paved crest: an arid climate and a fat clay core reach a
+weighted sum of 15, two thirds of the way from 13 to 16, and a flaw probability of $10^{-2.333} = 4.64 \times 10^{-3}$. The third is the most
+adverse combination of all three factors and takes the top of the curve. The fourth falls below the threshold of 13 and has a negligible flaw
+probability; an observation of continuous desiccation cracking would raise it to 1.0.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/05-crack-depth.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/05-crack-depth.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..42ef19c99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/05-crack-depth.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+---
+title: Crack Depth
+---
+
+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';
+
+
+
+# Crack Depth
+
+The flaw assessment passes one elevation to the downstream nodes along with the flaw probability: the bottom of the desiccation crack. Water can
+enter the crack only when the pool rises above it, so it sets the pool level at which initiation begins. It is also the elevation at which the user cuts the
+below-filter pathway when describing the below-filter roof materials (see
+[Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#shared-inputs)); the model does not cut the pathway itself (see
+[Crest-crack models: bottom of the crack](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#crest-crack-models-bottom-of-the-crack)
+in the CLE Common Methods manual). This chapter documents how the model obtains the crack depth from the climate, the crest soil, and the surface
+layer.
+
+The crack depth is computed whatever the flaw probability, including when the flaw probability is negligible or when the observation override sets
+it to 1.0. The exception is an inapplicable mechanism — every listed crest soil a clean or nearly clean sand or gravel — when the crack depth is
+zero rather than tabulated (see [Inapplicable Mechanism](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#inapplicable-mechanism)).
+
+## Tabulated Crack Depths
+
+The crack depth $d_c$, in feet, is read from or
+, adapted from Tables 5.10 to 5.13 of Fell et al.
+(2024) . The tables are entered with three of the flaw inputs:
+
+- **Surface layer** — a crest with no road or pathway takes ; a gravel road and a
+ paved crest both take the gravel-roadway depths of .
+- **Climate** — the climate selection selects the row.
+- **Soil column** — the governing crest-soil likelihood factor $LF_{cs}$ of [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#crest-soil), 1 to 4,
+ selects the column. An unknown crest soil, scored 2, takes the column $LF_{cs} = 2$.
+
+cs = 1' }, { value: 'LFcs = 2' }, { value: 'LFcs = 3' }, { value: 'LFcs = 4' }]]}
+ columns={[
+ ['Temperate', 'Seasonal', 'Monsoonal', 'Arid'],
+ ['1.5', '1.5', '3', '5'],
+ ['3', '5', '6.5', '15'],
+ ['5', '6.5', '10', '20'],
+ ['8', '12', '15', '20'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+cs = 1' }, { value: 'LFcs = 2' }, { value: 'LFcs = 3' }, { value: 'LFcs = 4' }]]}
+ columns={[
+ ['Temperate', 'Seasonal', 'Monsoonal', 'Arid'],
+ ['0', '0', '0', '2'],
+ ['1.5', '1.5', '3', '5'],
+ ['2.5', '3', '5', '10'],
+ ['5', '8', '10', '15'],
+ ]}
+/>
+
+The tabulated depth never decreases with a drier climate, a more plastic soil, or an unprotected crest, although several neighboring entries are
+equal — for example, the temperate and seasonal depths for a soil scored 1, and the arid depths with no road or pathway for soils scored 3 and 4.
+The conditions that raise the flaw probability therefore never raise the bottom of the crack. Paving, however, lowers the flaw probability
+without changing the depth, because a paved crest and a gravel road share the gravel-roadway depths. The deepest crack, 20 ft, occurs in an
+arid climate on a crest with no road or pathway in a soil scored 3 or 4.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-09 — Engineering Basis]
+The adaptation of Fell et al. (2024) Tables 5.10 to 5.13 into and
+ requires an engineering basis to state here. Confirm (1) that each of the
+four source tables corresponds to one climate; (2) how the source tables' soil descriptions were mapped onto the four crest-soil likelihood
+factors used as columns; (3) whether the tabulated values are the source depths or a selection from a range given in the source (for example, a
+central or upper value); and (4) the source of the zero gravel-roadway depths for a soil scored 1 in the temperate, seasonal, and monsoonal
+climates. Provide the page or table references, or the engineering-judgment attribution, for each adaptation.
+:::
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-10 — Engineering Basis]
+A paved crest takes the crack depths tabulated for a gravel roadway, so the model assigns it the same crack depth as a gravel road although it
+scores it as less likely to crack (likelihood factor 1 against 2.5). Provide the engineering basis — a literature source, or the
+engineering-judgment attribution — for treating the depth of a desiccation crack beneath a paved surface as equal to that beneath a gravel road.
+
+Proposed (unconfirmed): the source tables give depths only for an unprotected crest and for a crest under a roadway; a sealed pavement is a
+roadway, and treating it as such keeps the crack depth on the deeper of the two available values for a protected crest. Confirm or replace.
+:::
+
+## Crack Depth from Measured Net Evaporation
+
+When a measured average annual net evaporation $E_n$ is supplied, the crack depth is not read for one climate. Instead the model reads the four
+depths for the user's surface layer and soil column — one for each climate — and interpolates linearly between them in $E_n$ on the same points as
+the climate likelihood factor ( in
+[Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#climate)):
+
+- $E_n$ of 425 mm or less takes the temperate depth.
+- Between 425 and 450 mm, the depth moves linearly from the temperate to the seasonal depth; from 450 to 900 mm it is the seasonal depth.
+- Between 900 and 925 mm, the depth moves linearly from the seasonal to the monsoonal depth; from 925 to 1500 mm it is the monsoonal depth.
+- Above 1500 mm, the depth is the arid depth.
+
+Measured net evaporation therefore resolves to the depth of one climate category except within the two short transitions. For example, on a crest
+with no road or pathway and a lean clay core (soil score 2), a net evaporation of 437.5 mm gives a depth halfway between the temperate 3 ft and the
+seasonal 5 ft, $d_c = 4$ ft.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-11 — Engineering Basis]
+Interpolating the crack depth in net evaporation between the depths of the four climate categories, on the same band boundaries as the climate
+likelihood factor, requires an engineering basis. State whether Fell et al. (2024) relates crack depth to net evaporation directly (and cite the
+table), or provide the engineering-judgment attribution for using the climate-category depths at fixed net-evaporation bands.
+:::
+
+## Bottom-of-Crack Elevation
+
+The bottom of the crack is the crest elevation less the crack depth:
+
+
+
+where $z_c$ is the crest elevation. This is the crest-crack relationship of the CLE Common Methods manual (see
+[Crest-crack models: bottom of the crack](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/flaw-conventions#crest-crack-models-bottom-of-the-crack)).
+The crack depth is in feet and is subtracted without conversion, so the crest elevation must be in feet for $z_{bc}$ to be correct (see
+[Units](./03-input-parameters.mdx#units) in Input Parameters). When the mechanism is inapplicable — every listed crest soil a clean or nearly clean
+sand or gravel — the crack depth is zero and $z_{bc} = z_c$.
+
+## Cracks of Zero Depth
+
+Three entries of are zero: a soil scored 1 under a paved crest or a gravel road in
+a temperate, seasonal, or monsoonal climate. For these crests — and, when a net evaporation is supplied, for any value of 1500 mm or less on such a crest — the
+bottom of the crack is at the crest. Because initiation requires the pool to rise above the bottom of the crack
+( in [Event Tree](./06-event-tree.mdx#node-2-initiation)), the SRP is then
+negligible at every pool level up to the crest, whatever the flaw probability. This holds even when continuous desiccation cracking has been
+observed: the observation sets the flaw probability to 1.0 but supplies no crack depth.
+
+:::warning[INPUT NEEDED IN-12 — Applicability]
+State how the model is to be used when continuous desiccation cracking has been observed at a crest whose tabulated crack depth is zero, or is
+shallower than the cracking observed. The model always takes the tabulated depth, so an observed crack in a low-plasticity crest under a roadway in
+a temperate, seasonal, or monsoonal climate contributes nothing to the SRP below the crest. State whether this outcome is intended, and whether the
+user should instead evaluate an observed crack of known depth by other means.
+:::
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/06-event-tree.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/06-event-tree.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f114e9f17
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/06-event-tree.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+---
+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
+
+The model computes the SRP at each headwater level from the eight-node event tree shared by the CLE screening models, documented in
+[Event Tree](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree) of the CLE Common Methods manual. The tree is
+evaluated at every supplied headwater value and at additional pool levels between them, as described in
+[Headwater Grid](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#headwater-grid). This chapter states how
+each node is populated for desiccation cracking. Only the flaw node is specific to the mechanism; the other seven follow the crest-crack
+conventions of the shared manual without change.
+
+## Node Summary
+
+
+
+## Node 1: Flaw
+
+*Question:* Does a continuous transverse desiccation crack exist across the crest?
+
+The flaw probability $P_{flaw}$ is the result of [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx): the scored probability from the surface layer,
+climate, and crest soil, or 1.0 when continuous desiccation cracking has been observed, or a negligibly small value when the mechanism is
+inapplicable or the weighted sum is below 13 without an observation. It is the same at every pool level.
+
+## Node 2: Initiation
+
+*Question:* Does water flowing through the crack erode its walls?
+
+Initiation is the headwater gate of the crest-crack models (see
+[Crest-Crack Models: Headwater Gate](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate)
+in the CLE Common Methods manual), applied at the bottom-of-crack elevation $z_{bc}$ of [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx#bottom-of-crack-elevation).
+At a headwater (pool) elevation $h$, the initiation probability is
+
+
+
+At a pool exactly at the bottom of the crack, initiation is zero. When the mechanism is inapplicable, initiation is zero at every pool level. No
+shear stress is computed and tailwater plays no part. Certain initiation above the bottom of the crack is a shared assumption of the crest-crack
+models (Assumption 9 in
+[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#initiation) of
+the CLE Common Methods manual).
+
+## Node 3: Continuation
+
+*Question:* Does an unfiltered exit allow erosion to continue?
+
+Continuation follows the crest-crack convention of
+[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 continuation probability $P_{cont}(h)$ at pool level $h$ is set as follows. With no filter on the failure
+pathway, $P_{cont} = 1.0$ at every pool level. With a filter whose top is at $z_{tf}$, $P_{cont}$ is the probability of continuing erosion
+$P_{ce}$ at pool levels at or below $z_{tf}$, and 1.0 above it, where the water in the upper part of the crack passes over the filter's top. A
+filter caps the pathway when its top reaches the crest and no full-pathway roof materials are given (see
+[The Failure Pathway](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/failure-pathway-and-progression#the-failure-pathway)
+in the CLE Common Methods manual); such a filter gives $P_{ce}$ at every pool level. The value of $P_{ce}$
+is evaluated once, by the shared continuation method, from the filter and the base soils upstream of it (see
+[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)
+in the Continuation (Filter Evaluation) manual).
+
+Because initiation is zero at or below the bottom of the crack, a filter that does not cap the pathway and whose top lies at or below $z_{bc}$
+never affects the SRP: at every pool level where initiation occurs, the pool is above the filter's top and continuation is 1.0. A filter that caps
+the pathway is the exception at any crack depth: its continuation value $P_{ce}$ and the below-filter roof-support value apply at every pool level,
+including, for a crack of zero depth, the pool levels above the crest at which initiation occurs.
+
+## Node 4: Progression — Roof Support
+
+*Question:* Does the material over the enlarging pipe hold a roof, so that the pipe stays open?
+
+The roof-support probability $P_{roof}(h)$ is the minimum roof-support probability over the material set that applies at pool level $h$ (see
+[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)
+in the CLE Common Methods manual): the below-filter materials, taken at the bottom-of-crack elevation, 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 $z_{tf}$ (and at every pool level when no filter is
+present). Roof support therefore changes at the filter's top in step with continuation.
+
+The crest soils of the flaw assessment and the roof materials are separate inputs. The crest soils describe the material the crack crosses at the
+crest and set the likelihood and depth of cracking; the roof materials describe the materials along the failure pathway and set the probability
+that the enlarging pipe stays open.
+
+## Node 5: Progression — No Crack Filling
+
+*Question:* Is the enlarging pipe left unfilled by material carried in from upstream?
+
+The probability of no crack filling $P_{nf}$ depends only on the embankment type, per
+[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)
+in the CLE Common Methods manual, following Fell et al. (2024) . It is the same at every pool level.
+
+## Node 6: Progression — No Flow Limitation
+
+*Question:* Does the flow into the enlarging pipe remain unrestricted by upstream seepage-limiting elements?
+
+The probability of no flow limitation $P_{nl}(h)$ is the minimum over the upstream elements that reach the pool level, per
+[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. When a top-of-wall elevation $z_{tw}$ is supplied, every listed element applies at pool levels at or below
+$z_{tw}$; above it the walls drop out and only an upstream facing element remains. With no element listed, $P_{nl} = 1.0$.
+
+## Nodes 7 and 8: Unsuccessful Intervention and Breach
+
+*Questions:* Do detection and intervention fail? Does an uncontrolled release of impounded water occur?
+
+The probabilities $P_{int}$ and $P_{br}$ are the user-specified values, each applied at every pool level and each defaulting to 1.0 (see
+[Nodes 7 and 8: Unsuccessful Intervention and Breach](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/event-tree#nodes-7-and-8-unsuccessful-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:
+
+
+
+as 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) of the CLE Common
+Methods manual. Wherever the product is zero — for example at and below the bottom of the crack, or where a user-specified probability is zero —
+the SRP is reported as a negligibly small value rather than zero. Above the bottom of the crack the SRP changes with pool level only where the pool crosses the top of a filter or the top of a wall that lies
+above $z_{bc}$.
+
+ shows which nodes vary with pool level. Every node is evaluated directly from the
+inputs, so the curve can be reproduced exactly from the reported node values, apart from any sampling in the continuation probability $P_{ce}$.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/07-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/07-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..92ddf3472
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/07-assumptions-and-limitations.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+---
+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 desiccation model applies deliberate simplifications relative to a detailed assessment of desiccation cracking. They reduce input requirements
+and are designed to avoid false negatives at the screening level. This chapter lists the assumptions specific to desiccation cracking. The
+assumptions the model shares with the other CLE screening models — the event-tree product, certain initiation above the bottom of a crest crack,
+the crest-crack pathway gates, and the tabulated progression probabilities — are listed in
+[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) of the CLE
+Common Methods manual and apply here unchanged. 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.
+
+## Flaw Probability
+
+1. **Three site factors — the surface layer, the climate, and the crest soil, weighted 3, 2, and 1 — determine the probability of a continuous
+ desiccation crack.** (See [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#factors).)
+ - *Engineering basis:* Risk-factor and likelihood-factor scoring of Fell et al. (2024) ; the specific
+ weights and scores are requested at marker IN-06 in [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#crest-soil).
+ - *Effect on results:* Across their full ranges, the surface layer can move the weighted sum by up to 9, the climate by up to 6, and the soil
+ by up to 3. These are limits, not a ranking of every change: going from a gravel road to no road or pathway adds 4.5, less than the 6 added
+ by going from a temperate to an arid climate.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where other conditions control cracking at the site — for example the moisture content at which the crest was
+ compacted, vegetation, or the exposure of the crest to sun and wind — that the three factors do not describe.
+2. **When several crest soils are listed, the most crack-prone of them governs.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Screening design decision (engineering judgment): the crack needs to form in only one of the soils it crosses, so the
+ soil most able to crack is taken as controlling, the conservative choice at the screening level.
+ - *Effect on results:* Once the list holds a scored soil, adding a less plastic soil never lowers the flaw probability or the crack depth;
+ adding a more plastic one can raise both.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the most plastic soil occupies only a small part of the crest that a crack could not cross continuously.
+3. **An unknown crest soil is scored 2.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-05 in [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#crest-soil).
+ - *Effect on results:* An unknown soil gives a flaw probability no higher than a known high-plasticity silt or fat clay, and no lower than a
+ known silty sand, silty gravel, low-plasticity silt, clayey sand, or clayey gravel; the probabilities are equal when both weighted sums fall
+ below 13, or when an observation of cracking sets both to 1.0. Its crack is always shallower than that of the more plastic soils and deeper
+ than that of the less plastic ones.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the crest is likely to be built of a high-plasticity soil but its classification has not been confirmed;
+ listing the probable class then gives the more conservative result.
+4. **A measured average annual net evaporation, when supplied, replaces the climate selection for both the climate score and the crack depth.**
+ (See [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#climate).)
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see markers IN-04 in [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#climate) and IN-11 in
+ [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx#crack-depth-from-measured-net-evaporation).
+ - *Effect on results:* Outside the two short transitions at 425 to 450 mm and 900 to 925 mm, the measured value gives the same result as the
+ climate category it falls in; within them it gives an intermediate result.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the climate is better described by the timing of drying periods than by their annual total, for example a
+ climate with long dry seasons but moderate annual net evaporation.
+5. **A weighted sum below 13 gives a zero flaw probability, and, other than a crest of clean sands and gravels alone (Assumption 7), no factor
+ forces the probability to zero on its own.**
+ (See [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#lower-threshold).)
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-07 in [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#lower-threshold).
+ - *Effect on results:* A paved crest is not ruled out in every case: it reaches the threshold in an arid climate with a soil scored 2 or more
+ (or an unknown soil), or in a monsoonal climate with a fat clay.
+ Below the threshold the SRP is negligible at every pool level unless cracking has been observed. At the threshold the flaw probability
+ drops from 1 × 10-3 to negligible across a single step of the weighted sum.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where a crest scoring just below 13 has conditions, not captured by the factors, that favor cracking.
+6. **An observation of continuous desiccation cracking sets the flaw probability to 1.0.** The observation counts only when transverse cracking
+ has been observed, is attributed to desiccation, and is judged continuous across the crest.
+ - *Engineering basis:* Engineering judgment, following the observation-override convention of the CLE screening 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): an observed continuous crack demonstrates the flaw directly.
+ - *Effect on results:* The flaw node no longer limits the curve; the downstream nodes, and the crack depth through the initiation gate, still
+ do.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the observed cracking is shallow surface cracking that is not continuous through the embankment; the
+ observation should then not be reported as continuous.
+7. **Desiccation cracking does not occur in the clean and nearly clean sands and gravels SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP.** Such soils are passed
+ over when listed with others, and make the mechanism inapplicable when listed alone.
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-08 in [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#inapplicable-mechanism).
+ - *Effect on results:* A crest of these soils alone gives a negligible SRP at every pool level, whatever the surface layer, the climate, or an
+ observation of cracking.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the classification of the crest soil is uncertain and a plastic fraction may be present; listing the possible
+ plastic class, or leaving the list empty, keeps the mechanism in the analysis.
+
+## Crack Depth
+
+8. **The crack depth is a tabulated value by climate, surface layer, and crest-soil score.** (See
+ [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx#tabulated-crack-depths).)
+ - *Engineering basis:* Adapted from Fell et al. (2024) ; the adaptation is requested at marker IN-09 in
+ [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx#tabulated-crack-depths).
+ - *Effect on results:* The crack depth, measured down from the crest elevation, sets the pool level at which the SRP first rises above
+ negligible: the deeper the tabulated crack, the lower that pool level. Further steps can follow where the pool crosses the top of a filter or
+ of a wall.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the depth of desiccation cracking has been measured, for example in test pits or trenches across the crest, or
+ where the crest has been rebuilt or treated so that the tabulated depth does not apply.
+9. **A paved crest takes the crack depths tabulated for a gravel roadway.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-10 in [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx#tabulated-crack-depths).
+ - *Effect on results:* A paved crest and a gravel road with the same climate and soil have the same bottom of crack, although the paved crest
+ has the lower flaw probability.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where a sealed pavement keeps the crest soil moist enough to limit cracking to a shallower depth than under a gravel
+ road.
+10. **The crack depth is always the tabulated value, including when continuous cracking has been observed.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-12 in [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx#cracks-of-zero-depth).
+ - *Effect on results:* An observed crack in a crest whose tabulated depth is zero contributes nothing to the SRP below the crest.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where the observed crack is deeper than the tabulated value.
+11. **The tabulated crack depths are in feet and are subtracted from the crest elevation without conversion.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Basis requested — see marker IN-03 in [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#units).
+ - *Effect on results:* With elevations in feet, the bottom of the crack is as tabulated. With elevations in another unit, it is misplaced.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Whenever elevations are not in feet.
+12. **The width of the crack is not estimated.**
+ - *Engineering basis:* Follows from the headwater initiation gate of the crest-crack models (see
+ [Crest-Crack Models: Headwater Gate](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/initiation#crest-crack-models-headwater-gate)
+ in the CLE Common Methods manual), which depends only on the bottom-of-crack elevation.
+ - *Effect on results:* None within the model; the width of a crack plays no part in its initiation, continuation, or progression nodes.
+ - *When it may not hold:* Where a narrow crack is expected to seal or to carry too little flow to erode; a detailed shear stress analysis of
+ the crack geometry is then needed.
+
+## Limitations
+
+- **Screening scope.** The model screens a single mechanism — transverse cracking at the crest by drying and shrinkage. Cracking by frost,
+ settlement, or hydraulic fracture is screened by the other CLE models or lies outside the family.
+- **Qualitative description of the crest.** The flaw probability and the crack depth rest on three qualitative descriptions. Two site-specific
+ inputs can refine them: a measured average annual net evaporation, which replaces the climate category in both results, and the observation of
+ continuous desiccation cracking, which sets the flaw probability. Other evidence of cracking — measured crack depths, the condition of the crest
+ after dry seasons, or test-pit logs — cannot be entered and does not refine either result.
+
+
diff --git a/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/08-output-and-interpretation.mdx b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/08-output-and-interpretation.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..3ef19443e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/08-output-and-interpretation.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+---
+title: Output and Interpretation
+---
+
+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';
+
+
+
+# Output and Interpretation
+
+The model reports the SRP at each evaluated pool level together with the probability of each of the eight nodes, in the form shared by the
+crest-crack models and documented in
+[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) of the CLE Common
+Methods manual. This chapter documents the flaw-assessment results specific to desiccation cracking and how to read the curve for this mechanism.
+When a filter intersects the failure pathway, the results of the shared continuation method are also reported, as described in
+[Output and Interpretation](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/continuation-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation) of the Continuation
+(Filter Evaluation) manual.
+
+## Flaw-Assessment Results
+
+The flaw assessment reports the quantities of [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx) and [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx):
+
+- **Surface-layer, climate, and crest-soil likelihood factors** — $LF_s$, $LF_{cl}$, and $LF_{cs}$. The climate factor is the interpolated value
+ when a net evaporation was supplied.
+- **Governing crest soil** — the listed soil class whose score set $LF_{cs}$. It is absent when the crest soils are unknown and when the mechanism
+ is inapplicable.
+- **Whether the mechanism applies** — no only when every listed crest soil is a clean or nearly clean sand or gravel. The likelihood factor of the
+ soil, the weighted sum, and the raw flaw probability are then reported as zero.
+- **Weighted sum** $\Sigma$.
+- **Raw flaw probability** $P_{raw}$ — the value from the weighted-sum curve, before the observation override; zero when the weighted sum is below
+ 13.
+- **Flaw probability** $P_{flaw}$ — the value used in the event tree: 1.0 when the observation override applied, otherwise $P_{raw}$, with a zero
+ replaced by a negligibly small value.
+- **Crack depth** $d_c$, in feet, and the **bottom-of-crack elevation** $z_{bc}$.
+
+## Interpreting the System Response Curve
+
+The curve has the shape described for the crest-crack models in
+[Interpreting the System Response Curve](https://usace-rmc.github.io/RMC-Software-Documentation/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-common-methods-screening/v1.0/output-and-interpretation#interpreting-the-system-response-curve)
+of the CLE Common Methods manual:
+
+- **At and below the bottom of the crack** $z_{bc}$, the SRP is negligible, because initiation is zero.
+- **Just above the bottom of the crack**, the SRP steps up to the product of the flaw probability and the continuation, progression, intervention,
+ and breach nodes that apply at that pool level.
+- **Further steps** occur only where the pool crosses the top of a filter $z_{tf}$ or the top of a wall $z_{tw}$ that lies above $z_{bc}$.
+
+Two features are particular to desiccation cracking:
+
+- **The height of the curve depends strongly on the crest description.** The flaw probability spans from negligible to 0.5 across the attainable
+ weighted sums, so the surface layer, the climate, and the crest soil can move the curve by several orders of magnitude. The downstream nodes
+ can control the height instead: a low continuation probability below a filter, or a strongly flow-limiting upstream element such as a modern
+ cutoff wall (a probability of no flow limitation of 0.001), lowers the curve by up to three orders of magnitude at the pool levels where it
+ applies.
+- **The pool level at which the curve rises is also set by the crest description.** The same three descriptions select the crack depth, from zero
+ to 20 ft below the crest. A crest whose tabulated depth is zero has a negligible SRP at every pool level up to the crest, even when continuous
+ cracking has been observed (see [Crack Depth](./05-crack-depth.mdx#cracks-of-zero-depth)).
+
+## Example
+
+ shows the node values for a homogeneous earthfill embankment with a crest at
+elevation 100 ft, no road or pathway on the crest, a seasonal climate, and a lean clay (CL) crest soil. No filter intersects the failure pathway,
+the full-pathway roof material is lean clay, a sheet pile wall upstream has its top at elevation 98 ft, and intervention and breach take their
+defaults of 1.0. The flaw assessment gives $\Sigma = 3(4) + 2(2) + 1(2) = 18$, a flaw probability halfway in the logarithm between
+1 × 10-2 and 1 × 10-1, $P_{flaw} = 10^{-1.5} = 0.0316$, and a crack depth of 5 ft, so $z_{bc} = 95$ ft.
+
+
+
+The flaw probability is 0.0316 at every pool level. Continuation, roof support, and crack filling are 1.0 at every pool level, because no filter
+intersects the pathway, a lean clay roof material has a roof-support probability of 1.0, and the embankment is homogeneous earthfill.
+Above the top of the wall the flow entering the upper part of the crack passes over the wall, so flow limitation no longer applies and the SRP
+doubles. Had the crest carried a gravel road instead, the weighted sum would have been 13.5, the flaw probability 1.47 × 10-3, and the
+crack depth 1.5 ft: the curve would be lower by more than an order of magnitude and would not rise until the pool exceeded elevation 98.5 ft.
+
+## 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:
+
+- **Flaw probability** — the reported likelihood factors should match the inputs per [Flaw Probability](./04-flaw-probability.mdx), and, when the
+ mechanism applies, the weighted sum should equal $3\,LF_s + 2\,LF_{cl} + LF_{cs}$; when it is inapplicable the weighted sum and the soil
+ likelihood factor are reported as zero (see [Inapplicable Mechanism](./04-flaw-probability.mdx#inapplicable-mechanism)). A flaw probability of 1.0 should appear only when the observation override applied.
+- **Bottom of the crack** — when the mechanism applies, the bottom-of-crack elevation should equal the crest elevation less the tabulated depth of
+ or ; when it is inapplicable, it equals the crest elevation. A bottom of crack on a different datum from the headwater series, or a crest
+ elevation not in feet, misplaces the step of the curve (see [Input Parameters](./03-input-parameters.mdx#units)).
+- **Plateau** — above the bottom of the crack, the SRP equals the product of the reported node values at that pool level.
+
+## Screening Results Relative to Detailed Analysis
+
+The model's results indicate whether concentrated leak erosion through desiccation cracking at the crest warrants detailed analysis; they are not a
+substitute for one. Where the result is significant to a decision, the flaw probability and the crack depth — the two quantities the crest
+description controls — should be re-examined with site evidence of cracking, such as test pits across the crest and observations after dry
+seasons, 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-desiccation-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..2fbcb82ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/_input-needed.md
@@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
+# Input Needed — Concentrated Leak Erosion Desiccation 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 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The four climate descriptions (Arid: less than 10 in of rainfall and high summer
+temperatures; Monsoonal: distinct wet and dry periods with high summer temperatures; Seasonal:
+annual rainfall greater than 20 in with no prolonged hot, dry periods; Temperate: uniform
+rainfall throughout the year). As stated they leave gaps (10 to 20 in of rainfall with no
+distinct wet and dry periods) and overlap (less than 10 in with distinct wet and dry periods).
+
+**Needed:** The table of Fell et al. (2024) the descriptions come from, and the rule for
+classifying a site that falls between them (for example, select the drier category, or supply a
+measured net evaporation instead).
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-02 — Definition — `03-input-parameters.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The definition of the average annual net evaporation input (mm).
+
+**Needed:** How it is determined (for example, annual pan or lake evaporation less annual
+rainfall), over what period of record it is averaged, and the source that defines it for use
+with the desiccation crack-depth tables.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** Annual evaporation less annual rainfall, averaged over the period
+of record, as used by Fell et al. (2024) to characterize climate in its desiccation crack-depth
+tables.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-03 — Applicability — `03-input-parameters.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The tabulated crack depths are in feet and are subtracted from the crest
+elevation without unit conversion, so a crest elevation in meters gives a wrong bottom-of-crack
+elevation. (Desiccation-model instance of marker IN-01 of the CLE Common Methods manual.)
+
+**Needed:** The length unit the model is intended to be used in, and the instruction for a user
+working in SI units.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The model is intended for elevations in feet; a user working in SI
+converts the elevations to feet before running it.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-04 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-probability.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The net-evaporation relationship for the climate likelihood factor (net
+evaporation 175, 425, 450, 900, 925, 1500, just above 1500, 2000 mm → likelihood factor 1, 1, 2,
+2, 3, 3, 4, 4): the band boundaries, the linear transitions at 425–450 and 900–925 mm against
+the abrupt step at 1500 mm, the end values held beyond 175 and 2000 mm, and the equivalence of
+each band with one climate category.
+
+**Needed:** Citation of the Fell et al. (2024) table relating net evaporation to the climate
+categories, or the engineering-judgment attribution, and why the 1500 mm transition is abrupt.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-05 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-probability.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The Unknown crest-soil likelihood factor of 2 (the score of a silty or lean
+clay, below high-plasticity silt 3 and fat clay 4). It also selects the crack-depth column.
+
+**Needed:** The source of the value or the engineering-judgment attribution, and why an
+intermediate rather than the most crack-prone score is adopted for an unknown soil at the
+screening level.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-06 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-probability.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The factor scores: risk factors 3 (surface layer), 2 (climate), 1 (crest soil);
+surface-layer scores Paved 1, Gravel road 2.5, No road or pathway 4; climate scores Arid 4,
+Monsoonal 3, Seasonal 2, Temperate 1; crest-soil scores SM, GM, ML, SC, GC 1; CL-ML, CL 2; MH 3;
+CH 4.
+
+**Needed:** The Fell et al. (2024) table each is taken from, or the engineering-judgment
+attribution for any adapted value, in particular the gravel-road score of 2.5.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-07 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-probability.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The weighted-sum curve (13, 16, 20, 24 → 1 × 10⁻³, 1 × 10⁻², 1 × 10⁻¹, 0.5) and
+the lower threshold (a weighted sum below 13 gives a zero flaw probability; exactly 13 takes
+1 × 10⁻³).
+
+**Needed:** The figure or table of Fell et al. (2024) they are taken from, or the
+engineering-judgment attribution, including why the probability is zero rather than continuing
+to fall below 13. (The log-linear interpolation form itself is marker IN-03 of the CLE Common
+Methods manual.)
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-08 — Engineering Basis — `04-flaw-probability.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** Treating SP-SM, SW, SP, GP-GM, GW, and GP as soils in which desiccation cracking
+does not occur (passed over when listed with other soils; the mechanism is inapplicable when
+they are listed alone), while the silty classes SM, GM, and ML, which can also be non-plastic,
+are retained with the lowest score.
+
+**Needed:** The literature source or engineering-judgment attribution, and confirmation that
+retaining SM, GM, and ML is deliberate.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** Clean and nearly clean sands and gravels, with less than 12 percent
+fines, have too little plasticity to shrink on drying and hold open a crack, so a crest built
+only of them cannot develop a desiccation crack.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-09 — Engineering Basis — `05-crack-depth.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The adaptation of Fell et al. (2024) Tables 5.10 to 5.13 into the two crack-depth
+tables (one for a crest with no road or pathway, one for a gravel roadway; each four climates ×
+crest-soil likelihood factor 1 to 4).
+
+**Needed:** Confirmation that each source table corresponds to one climate; how the source
+soil descriptions were mapped onto the four soil-score columns; whether the tabulated values are
+the source depths or a selection from a range (for example a central or upper value); and the
+source of the zero gravel-roadway depths for a soil scored 1 in the temperate,
+seasonal, and monsoonal climates. Page or table references, or the engineering-judgment
+attribution, for each adaptation.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-10 — Engineering Basis — `05-crack-depth.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** A paved crest takes the crack depths tabulated for a gravel roadway, although it
+is scored as less likely to crack (likelihood factor 1 against 2.5).
+
+**Needed:** Literature source or engineering-judgment attribution for treating the depth of a
+desiccation crack beneath a paved surface as equal to that beneath a gravel road.
+
+**Proposed (unconfirmed):** The source tables give depths only for an unprotected crest and a
+crest under a roadway; a sealed pavement is a roadway, and treating it as such keeps the crack
+depth on the deeper of the two available values for a protected crest.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-11 — Engineering Basis — `05-crack-depth.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** When a net evaporation is supplied, the crack depth is interpolated between the
+depths of the four climate categories on the same net-evaporation band boundaries as the
+climate likelihood factor.
+
+**Needed:** Whether Fell et al. (2024) relates crack depth to net evaporation directly (cite the
+table), or the engineering-judgment attribution for using the climate-category depths at fixed
+net-evaporation bands.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-12 — Applicability — `05-crack-depth.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The crack depth is always the tabulated value, even when continuous desiccation
+cracking has been observed. An observed crack in a low-plasticity crest (soil score 1) under a
+paved crest or gravel road in a temperate, seasonal, or monsoonal climate has a tabulated depth
+of zero, so it contributes nothing to the SRP below the crest.
+
+**Needed:** Whether this outcome is intended, and how the user should treat an observed crack of
+known depth (for example, by evaluating it by other means).
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
+
+## IN-13 — Engineering Basis — `03-input-parameters.mdx`
+
+**Regarding:** The defaults of the two flaw selections. When no surface layer is given the model
+takes a crest with no road or pathway (the most crack-prone surface); when no climate is given it
+takes a temperate climate (the least crack-prone climate: likelihood factor 1, and crack depths
+no deeper than those of any other climate), which is the least conservative of the four.
+
+**Needed:** The engineering basis or engineering-judgment attribution for each default — in
+particular the temperate climate default — or a statement that both selections are always to be
+supplied and the defaults are not to be relied on.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+---
diff --git a/src/docConfig.js b/src/docConfig.js
index 3aa150ad4..b49711cad 100644
--- a/src/docConfig.js
+++ b/src/docConfig.js
@@ -404,8 +404,9 @@ const docs = [
category: 'web-applications',
software: 'system-response',
doc_location: 'web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening',
- doc_name: 'CLE Desiccation Screening Technical Reference Manual',
- active: false,
+ doc_name: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Desiccation Screening Technical Reference Manual',
+ sidebar_label: 'Concentrated Leak Erosion Desiccation Screening',
+ active: true,
draft: true,
},
{
diff --git a/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/bib.json b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-screening/v1.0/bib.json
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e5c80cf3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/static/bibliographies/web-applications/system-response/cle-desiccation-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"
+ }
+]