A parent says a student kit was not delivered, while a local notice cites a large school infrastructure allocation. Those are different programmes. The kit requires procurement, distribution and child-level records. The building requires sanctioned work, contractor or executing agency, inspection and maintenance. A larger building budget does not show that a specific student received shoes or books.

The school can direct the parent to the material-distribution grievance route and separately report an unsafe building or incomplete toilet. If a crowd forms because of conflicting messages, clear programme-specific information matters. Staff should avoid saying “the school scheme was funded” as a complete answer to a child's missing item.

Exam move: distinguish beneficiary-level in-kind goods from institution-level capital works and identify the evidence for each.

Worked example: A school receives kits while another receives a building work order. The first programme delivers goods to identified children; the second creates or repairs an asset for a school. For the kit, verify student handover. For the building, inspect completion and usability. Do not report both as 'children paid' or sum their counts as if they measured one kind of benefit.