Navaratnalu was a branding framework for major AP welfare commitments under the 2019-24 administration. Later programmes use different names, including Super Six. A historical table can help candidates recognise former terms such as Amma Vodi or YSR Pension Kanuka when older papers or sources mention them. But a 2026 answer must use the currently applicable name and order. Rebranding alone does not prove equal eligibility, amount or beneficiary coverage.

A careful comparison asks four separate questions: is the target group similar, is the benefit mechanism the same, did the governing order change, and did the old programme formally cease? For example, an education-oriented family transfer can resemble a former education transfer in purpose while differing in annual amount or per-child treatment. NTR Bharosa's pension order specifies revised categories and rates rather than merely swapping a label.

Avoid partisan conclusions in exam notes. The purpose is administrative accuracy, not to credit or blame a party. If an older scheme's legal status is unclear, label it historical and present the new programme's verified rules without claiming an exact successor. A live source should always outrank a retrospective political comparison for a current eligibility question.

Worked example: To compare a Navaratnalu-era programme with a later one, start with objective, eligible group, benefit, payment route and governing order. A similar objective does not prove legal continuity. If one programme ends and another begins with different eligibility, calling it an automatic successor is misleading. Note dates and changes explicitly. This method is safer than a one-to-one chart invented from political branding.

Active recall: Why does a similar purpose not establish a one-to-one successor? What evidence would be needed to claim a programme formally ended?