Government Document Discrepancy Research
Government data quality research
A method for comparing budgets, targets, reported progress, dates, and versions across official documents, separating substantive discrepancies from changes in definitions or updates. The public description focuses on method and makes no unsupported claims about policy outcomes.
Problem
Figures for the same policy or project can appear across different official documents. Differences in periods, units, versions, or definitions do not automatically mean the records contradict one another.
Research Question
How can source, definition, period, unit, and version help distinguish a change in scope from an update or a discrepancy that needs further review?
Method
Claims are organized as comparable facts with source context, then checked across documents referring to the same entity or project.
Output
The work produced a document-to-entity-to-fact-to-anomaly framework for organizing discrepancy types and follow-up checks.
Limitations
This page presents the research method and data model. It does not publish unverified figures or infer administrative error or policy impact. Each discrepancy still requires checking against its source, units, period, and version.
Evidence & Sources
Only reviewed public details are shown.
Source markers describe cited material; this site has not rechecked every external system.
What Is the Council Asking?
Reading the questions a city asks
A research note on what the May 2025 council-question analysis can show, and what it cannot establish.
Government Data Must Be More Than Accessible
Kaohsiung Civic MCP
Designed traceable access to municipal laws, budgets, news and council materials while preserving data-quality and reliability limits.
Kaohsiung Civic MCP
Government data infrastructure
Government data tools, source tracing and reliability auditing.