A parliamentary speech, an enacted section and a government response have different authority. The February 2014 Special Category Status assurance expressed a policy commitment; the Act enacted specific provisions, but did not write that label. The Union's 2016–18 releases and replies explain its chosen Special Assistance mechanism and amounts then released. AP's political position may dispute whether those steps fully met the original assurance. An exam-standard explanation should state each source and date without presenting one side's conclusion as an unqualified legal fact.

The same method applies to Polavaram and the capital. Parliament's Section 90 is a legal designation and execution instruction; a later budget describes funding; an engineering report describes physical progress. Section 94(3) is a capital-support obligation; a sanction order describes a package; a site inspection shows completion. The diagram in this book uses four boxes: promise or Act, scheme or order, money, output. An MCQ may test which box a given sentence belongs to.

Worked example: A parliamentary speech promised a support measure not spelled out in a section of the Act. Record the exact speaker, date and wording as assurance evidence. A subsequent scheme or budget can show action on that assurance but may use different eligibility or fiscal design. If asked whether Parliament enacted the promise verbatim in 2014, inspect the Act rather than inferring from the speech.

Active recall: Why is “special status was in Section 94” wrong? Which source would show a completed physical output?