An analyst paints 2024-25 scheme uptake by district onto a 2026 map with 28 boundaries. That can mislead if the table was compiled for 26 districts. Polavaram and Markapuram need records reassigned by mandal or other lower-level unit before a valid comparison. A state total may still be usable because state boundaries did not change, but the district values cannot be copied by name.

This matters when judging apparent disparities. A newly created district may seem to have zero beneficiaries simply because the source predates it. Conversely, attributing the entire parent-district count to the new district exaggerates its coverage. The map in this book is a locator and administrative study aid, not a choropleth of measured uptake.

Exam move: attach a boundary vintage to every district statistic and identify the two new districts before interpreting a ranking.

Worked example: An old survey table lists a scheme count for a district that was later divided. The original count belongs to that survey's boundary, not automatically to either new district. A valid new comparison requires underlying locality records or a clear caveat. Relabelling the row would make a false precision claim even if the scheme itself did not change.