Imagine a headline saying an AP department “grew by 20%.” Before accepting it, find the base and current columns. Comparing BE 2026-27 with BE 2025-26 answers how plans changed; comparing BE 2026-27 with RE 2025-26 answers how the new plan differs from the revised current-year expectation. Comparing actual 2024-25 with BE 2026-27 mixes a realised result with a plan and needs explicit labelling.
Next inspect whether a scheme moved departments or whether a loan was reclassified. A larger nominal allocation can buy less real work if costs rose. A smaller budget can still deliver more if an earlier one-time construction phase ended or procurement improved. Share-of-total comparisons add another denominator: a department's amount can rise while its budget share falls.
Exam application: write the full comparison as “BE 2026-27 versus RE 2025-26” before calculating a percentage. If the source is a speech, cross-check the line in the Budget at a Glance or detailed demand.
Worked example: To compare two budgets, first fix the financial years and columns. A 2026–27 BE and 2025–26 RE compare plans with an updated projection, not two audited outcomes. Adjust for price changes before interpreting real service growth. Keep department reorganisations and district boundary changes in view. Finally, write one defensible sentence: the line rose or fell by a calculated amount under a named definition, while delivery requires later evidence.