M5: README.md described the bundled fixture as a "3.6 MB two-year slice
(2019 + 2020)"; it's now a 15 MB four-year slice (2011, 2012, 2019,
2020), matching the regenerated fixture and the vignette's own
description.
M2: total-spending.Rmd cited County 1.8% / City 0.8% intergovernmental-
to-Direct and County 91.6% L/M, all roughly 2x off against the bundled
fixture. Measured directly against the fixture (all 50 states, each of
its four years): County IG/Direct 3.4%-5.1%, City IG/Direct 2.6%-3.1%,
County L/M 43%-51% (all varying by year). State 17.2%, AL 7.6%,
national 11.6%, and City L/M 188.3% were re-checked and left as-is.
M1: the "Why Total = Direct + M + L" paragraph described money a local
government *receives* and the state "redistributing as M" -- backwards.
M and L are both the *queried* government's own payments *out*: M to
other local governments, L up to its state. Rewrote the explanation;
the conclusion and non-M2-flagged figures are unchanged.
Task 7 (final) of the expenditure_concept plan. The vignette leads with the
two archetype questions -- a single government's own trend (either concept
works, held fixed across years) vs a cross-government rollup (direct only,
with the refusal error from cog_geographic_rollup() shown and explained) --
walked through with code that runs against the bundled fixture corpus
(years 2011/2012/2019/2020, substituting for "2017 vs today"). Explains the
double-counting mechanism (a state's M44 payment to a county is the same
dollar as the county's own E44/F44), why Total = Direct + M + L rather than
Direct + M, and the composition rules (expenditure_concept is orthogonal to
basis, mutually exclusive with recipe). README gets a short pointer section
with the one-line rule.
jared