Trap one: saying the Act itself granted Special Category Status. It did not use that phrase; the five-year assurance was in a parliamentary statement. Trap two: saying Hyderabad belongs territorially to both States. It was a common-capital arrangement inside Telangana. Trap three: using the original Section 5 text as the current law after the 2026 Amaravati amendment. Trap four: calling a Schedule promise a completed institution. Trap five: treating national-project designation as construction completion. Trap six: assuming all assets and liabilities follow a single ratio.

Trap seven: confusing the Ninth Schedule's corporations with the Tenth Schedule's facility-access institutions. Trap eight: confusing GRMB or KRMB with a tribunal or the Tungabhadra Board. Trap nine: using 2026 district boundaries for 2014 district-level grant amounts. Trap ten: calling a 2017 release figure a final 2026 accounting total. Correct answers generally reveal both a source and a date. If two options appear plausible, ask whether the question wants the statutory commitment, the post-amendment legal position or the implementation state.

Worked example: Five trap statements make a rapid drill: Hyderabad is still joint capital; Special Category Status is a numbered clause of the Act; a national project is necessarily finished; a map of current districts shows 2014 boundaries; and a grant release proves completed construction. Correct each with the decisive source and date. Explaining the source error is more durable than marking false by instinct.

Active recall: Explain all ten traps without notes. Which trap turns a historically accurate sentence into a false current answer?