[MaxGhenis]

Adds one sentence to the PTA post (#1457). It goes directly after the explainer's estimate of about 500,000 people in 2027-28 and about 1 million by the end of this Parliament:

PolicyEngine's counts are about a third higher than the Treasury's, and we have not established why. Both count people over State Pension age whose income tax falls; the government's costing estimates them with HMRC's Personal Tax Model and administrative data, and PolicyEngine with its representative sample of households.

Max approved this exact text, relayed by the Budget coordinator session. No figures change.

Basis:

• The counts.

  Year	PolicyEngine	HM Treasury explainer	Ratio
  2027-28	668,000	about 500,000	1.34
  2029-30	1.36 million	"around 1 million" by the end of this Parliament	about 1.36

  The PolicyEngine figures are the post's own figures, from the dashboard's run.

• Both count the same thing.

  • The dashboard's PTA applies to people over State Pension age with total income in the band.
  • It has no State Pension receipt test, which matches the explainer ("You do not need to receive the State Pension to be eligible").
  • Every gainer has the £12,570 Personal Allowance.

• Data sources. The government's Policy costings (p. 63) say the PTA's tax base "is estimated using HMRC's Personal Tax Model and HMRC administrative data".

• Why "not established".

  • About 200,000 of PolicyEngine's 2027-28 gainers have only the full new State Pension.
  • Taking them out leaves an income tax cut of about £23m, against the OBR's £44m. So that group doesn't reconcile the two figures.
  • An independent Opus 5.5 review recomputed this and confirmed it.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
policyengine-calculator-next	Ready	Preview	Oct 28, 2026 9:43pm UTC
policyengine-website	Ready	Preview	Oct 28, 2026 9:43pm UTC

[MaxGhenis]

Independent review at d4e8285: no blocking findings, a few optional nits. The Codex and Claude review lanes are closed, so another Opus 5.5 agent did it.

• The diff matches the approved text. The insertion is exactly the approved text, byte for byte, right after "For context, HM Treasury's explainer estimates…". It uses straight apostrophes, like the rest of the post. Nothing else changes.
• "About a third higher" holds for both counts. 668,000 / 500,000 = 1.34. 1.36 million / 1 million = 1.36, taking the explainer's "end of this Parliament" as 2029-30, when the PTA ends.
• The costing supports the Personal Tax Model clause. Policy costings, p. 63: "It is estimated using HMRC's Personal Tax Model and HMRC administrative data."
• "Both count people over State Pension age whose income tax falls" holds. The explainer counts pensioners "benefitting from a tax reduction". PolicyEngine's PTA applies only to people over State Pension age, and the post's count is people who pay less income tax.
• The rest of the post is consistent. Nothing else contradicts the sentence. Lines 738, 986 and 990 already name the representative sample and the Personal Tax Model.

After the review. I merged main in as 5820e38, so this PR lands after #1479. The PR's diff against main is still exactly the approved sentence; I checked the file byte for byte against main plus the sentence. CI is re-running on 5820e38.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[MaxGhenis]

Audit: admin-merging at 5820e38.

• Max's answer (28 Oct 2026, relayed verbatim by the Budget coordinator session): "Add sentence A (Recommended)". He approved this exact text, to go directly after the "For context, HM Treasury's explainer estimates…" sentence.
• Review: an independent Opus 5.5 review at d4e8285 found no blocking findings (comment 6481398625; file seat-pta/reviews/pr1483-opus-review.md).
• Main merged in: after Active voice in the fuel duty and PTA posts #1479, as 5820e38. The PR's diff against main is still exactly the approved sentence, checked byte for byte.
• CI: gh pr checks exits 0 on 5820e38 (10/10), and the PR is MERGEABLE.
• Why admin: the PR is from Max's account, so he can't approve it, and the required approving review was the only block.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code