Kapixhint
Notes and annotations

Notes and dated annotations

This notes area collects concise, dated entries that illustrate neutral observation of budget documents. Each note is presented as a short technical annotation: it identifies the location in the reference exemplar, enumerates the primitives affected, and records minimal provenance metadata. The entry below shows the structure used for an annotation: header with date and token, a summary of affected primitives, the technical observation, and a reference pointer to the provenance chain. The intent is not to recommend actions but to document how a reader should interpret structural cues such as boundary tags, aggregation formulas, and revision stamps. Notes emphasize reproducible reading: they include exact snapshot timestamps, the sampling method where relevant, and any qualifiers that influence comparability. This approach supports neutral cross-checking between versions and enables machine-assisted extraction of change sets for audit or archival review.

2025-02-18 · Note #N-2025-02-18-01
Location: excerpt CAT-OPS-01; affected primitives: category label, revision marker, provenance line
token: CAT-OPS-01
Observation: reclassification recorded as an adjustment-type marker without change to aggregation rule. The provenance line records author AR-210 and links to source receipts. Recommendation for readers: consult the revision chain to confirm whether sampled receipts were reclassified as direct expenditure lines or as sampled adjustments. This note documents where classification changed, not why a classification was chosen.
2025-03-05 · Note #N-2025-03-05-02
Location: aggregation rule AGG-2025-Q1; affected primitives: aggregation rule, derivation formula, sample date
token: AGG-2025-Q1
Observation: a derivation formula used a monthly sample and documented the sample window. The note records the exact formula and the sample window so readers can reproduce the aggregate. The record clarifies that the aggregate is a sampled snapshot rather than a full-period total. Readers should read the derivation line alongside the aggregation rule to interpret comparability between periods.

Contextual reading examples

This section provides short illustrative examples showing how multiple primitives interact in a recorded instance. Example A demonstrates a boundary becoming soft during a review window and the associated revision marker that annotates an explanatory note. Example B shows an aggregation rule flagged as derived from sampled data with explicit derivation formula and sample date. Each example includes the minimal provenance line: author id, timestamp, and reference token. The examples are intentionally neutral and descriptive: they show how to read relationships between category labels, boundaries, and revision markers without suggesting action. Readers use the tokens shown here to locate the corresponding full excerpt in the reference section and to expand the revision chain when needed.