Stop projecting group amounts onto every Riverside General Relief member

[MaxGhenis]

The bug

Two Riverside County General Relief (GR) variables are Person variables whose adds lists include group-level variables. policyengine-core evaluates each adds entry with calculate(added_variable, period, map_to=variable.entity.key), and map_result turns a group value into a person value with entity_pop.project(values) when no how is given (policyengine_core/simulations/simulation.py, _run_formula and map_result; same code in 3.32.8, the locked version, and 3.32.20). So every member of the group gets the whole group amount.

Property. ca_riv_general_relief_countable_property_value (Person) adds spm_unit_cash_assets (SPMUnit), ca_riv_general_relief_countable_vehicle_value (SPMUnit) and personal_property (Person). ca_riv_general_relief_property_eligible then sums it over the SPM unit, so cash and countable vehicle value count once per member. Run on main, 2024:

Household	Countable property	Property test (< $500)	GR, 2024-01
Two adults, $300 in one bank account	[300, 300], so 600	fails	$0 (should be $438.50)
Three adults, $4,850 of vehicles	[200, 200, 200], so 600	fails

Any adult unit of n ≥ 2 whose cash plus countable vehicle value is between $500/n and $500 is wrongly denied.

Deductions. ca_riv_general_relief_earned_income_deductions (Person) adds state_withheld_income_tax (TaxUnit) and additional_medicare_tax (TaxUnit), so every member deducts the whole tax unit's CA withholding and Additional Medicare Tax from their own wages. Run on main, 2024-01: a couple where person1 has a $30,000 pension and person2 has $4,800 of wages. ca_withheld_income_tax is [31.80, 0], but the deductions are [31.80, 62.40]: person2 deducts person1's withholding. Countable income falls from $369.40 to $337.60, and the grant rises from $69.10 to $100.90 a month.

The rule

The parameter files cite the Riverside DPSS manual "General Assistance Eligibility" (DP 90-001), pp. 20, 22 and 25, which is not public. The public sources agree with unit-level property and per-earner deductions:

• Riverside DPSS's General Assistance fact sheet (archived 2021) lists the income limits by unit size and says: "Total combined property cannot exceed $500".
• The contributor's summary of the manual linked from California Riverside County General Relief Program #6252 paraphrases p. 22 as "Countable property comprises the value of all non-exempt property", and p. 20 as deductions from earned income for "Federal, state, and local taxes", "Social Security/Medicare contributions" and "Other mandatory payroll deductions". A payroll deduction comes out of one earner's own pay; Alameda County's GA handbook says the same explicitly (90-05.151, p. 3).
• Additional Medicare Tax is withheld per employee: under 26 U.S.C. 3102(f)(1) the employer withholds only on wages it pays "in excess of $200,000", and "may disregard the amount of wages received by such taxpayer's spouse". 26 CFR 31.3102-4(a) adds that this applies regardless of filing status. The tax unit's additional_medicare_tax is the Form 8959 liability, which uses the filing-status threshold and adds self-employment income, so it is the wrong concept for a wage deduction even for one earner.

The fix

• ca_riv_general_relief_countable_property_value becomes an SPMUnit variable with quantity_type = STOCK, as in the San Bernardino and Orange County GR property variables. Core then adds the SPM-unit cash and vehicle amounts once and sums personal_property over members. ca_riv_general_relief_property_eligible is unchanged.
• The deduction sources list replaces state_withheld_income_tax with each person's own ca_withheld_income_tax, and additional_medicare_tax with a new Person variable, additional_medicare_tax_withheld = 0.9% × max(payroll_tax_gross_wages − $200,000, 0). Its threshold is a new parameter, gov.irs.payroll.medicare.additional.withholding_threshold (3102(f)(1)), kept separate from the 3101(b)(2) liability exclusion it happens to equal for single filers.
• Every source in the deduction list is now Person-level, so nothing is projected.

Why keep Additional Medicare rather than drop it. It is a mandatory wage deduction, and it can co-occur with GR eligibility in the model: a self-employment loss offsets wages in GR earned income, but not the Additional Medicare base. Integration Case 10 is such a household: $300,000 of wages, a $280,800 business loss, eligible for $50.90 a month only because the $75 of withholding is deducted. In practice the leg almost never binds.

Tests

Every new case fails on main and passes here (I ran each file against main's Riverside code):

• ca_riv_general_relief_countable_property_value.yaml (new): cash, vehicles and personal property each counted once.
• ca_riv_general_relief_property_eligible.yaml: Cases 3–5. A $300 account in a two-person unit passes; $300 in each of two accounts fails; three adults with $4,850 of vehicles pass.
• ca_riv_general_relief_earned_income_deductions.yaml (new): the pension/wages couple above; two earners where only one has CA withholding; a $300,000 earner whose Additional Medicare withholding ($75 a month) and CA withholding stay with them.
• integration.yaml: Case 8 (the $300 account, $438.50 grant), Case 9 (the pension/wages couple, $69.10) and Case 10 (above). Case 2 changes from [38.63, 0.38] to [38.63, 0]: person2 has no wages or withholding of their own. Its other outputs are unchanged.
• additional_medicare_tax_withheld.yaml (new): the threshold boundary ($200,000 → $0), $250,000 → $450, both examples in 26 CFR 31.3102-4 (spouses with $100,000 and $300,000: [0, 900] withheld against $1,350 of joint liability; spouses with $190,000 and $150,000: nothing withheld against $810 of liability), self-employment income alone, and a 401(k) deferral.

Invariants

tests/core/test_riverside_general_relief_attribution_invariants.py checks these with Hypothesis batches of one- to four-adult Riverside units plus a seeded population of 120. Each batch is run once, then again with the first member's assets and wages raised.

1. Countable property equals a numpy sum of the members' bank, stock and bond assets, vehicle value above $4,650 and personal property. Eligibility is that sum below $500.
2. Raising a member's assets never lowers countable property.
3. 0 ≤ additional_medicare_tax_withheld = 0.9% × (wages − $200,000)⁺ ≤ 0.9% × wages. The constants are typed from the statute, not read from parameters. For a one-person single filer it equals additional_medicare_tax.
4. Each member's monthly GR deductions equal their own Social Security, Medicare and Additional Medicare withholding plus their own CA withholding, ÷ 12. The members' CA withholding sums to state_withheld_income_tax, counted once.
5. Raising the first member's wages leaves every other member's deductions unchanged.

On main's Riverside code the seeded test fails on (1), and with only the property fix applied, on (4): 138 of 263 people.

Impact

• ca_riv_general_relief feeds no household benefit, net income or poverty aggregate; it is listed only in programs.yaml. Only GR and its intermediates move.
• Partner tests are unaffected. partners/analytics_coverage/signatures/ca.yaml (29 cases) and edge_cases/state/ca/riv_general_relief.yaml (3 cases) pass unchanged, and no file under partners/ is edited.
• API: ca_riv_general_relief_countable_property_value is now an SPM-unit variable, so a caller that set it as a person input must set it on the SPM unit. No repo file or partner test does.

Caveats

• ca_withheld_income_tax is an estimate from the person's whole AGI, so withholding attributable to a pension or interest is still deducted from that same person's wages. This PR only stops it moving to other members.
• The public fact sheet says property "cannot exceed $500" (so $500 passes), while the manual summary says "less than $500", which the model encodes. This PR doesn't change the boundary.

axiom: us:statutes/26/3102/f/1#additional_medicare_withholding_wages_subject_to_subsection_a encoded-correct (companion tests additional_medicare_withholding_applies_only_to_employer_wages_above_threshold, $250,000 from one employer → $50,000 subject to withholding, the base of this PR's $450 case, and additional_medicare_withholding_zero_at_threshold; rate us:statutes/26/3101/b/2#additional_medicare_tax_rate; rulespec-us f468c8da) | Riverside GR n/a: rulespec-us has no Riverside County (or any California county) General Relief module, and the only source, Riverside DPSS manual DP 90-001, is not public and not in axiom-corpus, so a queued issue could not quote the rule

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[DTrim99]

PR Review: Stop projecting group amounts onto every Riverside General Relief member

PR #9901 (author: MaxGhenis, head 3f7cd2fbee, merge-base b79705b4bd). 11 files, +724/−4, 1 commit.

Summary

The PR fixes two places where Riverside County General Relief (GR) gave every member of a unit the whole unit's amount.

• Property. ca_riv_general_relief_countable_property_value was a Person variable whose adds list included two SPM-unit variables (spm_unit_cash_assets, ca_riv_general_relief_countable_vehicle_value). Core projects a group value onto each person when it is listed in a person variable's adds (Simulation._run_formula calls calculate(..., map_to=variable.entity.key), and map_result returns entity_pop.project(values)). ca_riv_general_relief_property_eligible then summed over the unit, so cash and vehicle value counted once per member. The variable is now an SPMUnit STOCK, like the Orange County and San Bernardino GR property variables.
• Wage deductions. ca_riv_general_relief_earned_income_deductions (Person) added the tax unit's state_withheld_income_tax and additional_medicare_tax, so every member deducted the whole unit's withholding. The list now uses each person's own ca_withheld_income_tax and a new federal Person variable, additional_medicare_tax_withheld (0.9% of the employee's wages above $200,000, 26 U.S.C. 3102(f)(1)), with a new withholding_threshold parameter.

The law and the code agree:

• Riverside DPSS's public fact sheet says "Total combined property cannot exceed $500". That is one limit for the unit's combined property.
• The deductions are payroll deductions, which come out of each earner's own pay.
• The new withholding variable reproduces both examples in 26 CFR 31.3102-4.
• All 53 YAML cases in the touched folders pass at the head. The seeded invariant test passes, and CI is green (35/35).
• I reproduced the PR's headline examples, and single-person units are unchanged.

One blocker and three documentation-level items remain:

1. Blocker. Since this PR's CI ran, main has added a ratchet test (Guard against person variables that add group variables (every member gets the whole group amount) #9897) that lists these four Riverside edges as known bugs. It fails once they're fixed. The merge is textually clean, but the merged tree fails test_known_violations_only_shrink.
2. The Riverside half of the axiom line uses an n/a reason the guide doesn't allow.
3. The PR body says every new case fails on main. Three of them pass on main, and one of those can't detect the bug it names.
4. The new parameter's description doesn't follow the house template.

Critical (must fix)

1. Merged with current main, the person-adds ratchet fails, because this PR fixes all four of its Riverside entries.

• Where: main's policyengine_us/tests/code_health/test_no_group_variables_in_person_adds.py:113-136 (KNOWN_VIOLATIONS). It was added by Guard against person variables that add group variables (every member gets the whole group amount) #9897 (merged 2026-10-10), after this PR's only CI run (head committed 2026-10-06).
• What the ratchet says. The module docstring: "KNOWN_VIOLATIONS holds open bugs. Fixing one makes this file fail until its entry is deleted." test_known_violations_only_shrink calls assert_known_violations_live, which asserts that every listed triple is still projected.
• The listed triples (lines 116–135) are exactly the four this PR removes:
  • ("ca_riv_general_relief_countable_property_value", "adds", "ca_riv_general_relief_countable_vehicle_value")
  • ("ca_riv_general_relief_countable_property_value", "adds", "spm_unit_cash_assets")
  • ("ca_riv_general_relief_earned_income_deductions", "adds", "additional_medicare_tax")
  • ("ca_riv_general_relief_earned_income_deductions", "adds", "state_withheld_income_tax")
• Reproduced. I ran main's module logic against the PR head's tax-benefit system. The Riverside variable and parameter files are byte-identical between the head and the merge tree. The result: "No longer projected; delete these from KNOWN_VIOLATIONS:" followed by all four triples. No Riverside triple is still projected at the head.
• Why GitHub doesn't show it. git merge-tree --write-tree PolicyEngine/main 3f7cd2fbee is clean, so GitHub reports no conflict. The failure appears only when CI runs on the merged result.
• Fix: merge or rebase onto main and delete the four Riverside tuples from KNOWN_VIOLATIONS, keeping the mt_misc_deductions entry (Count a Montana casualty loss once per joint return and only for the spouse who had it #9888). Then rerun CI.

Should address

1. The Riverside half of the axiom line uses an n/a reason the guide doesn't allow.

• Where: PR body, last line: ... | Riverside GR n/a: rulespec-us has no Riverside County (or any California county) General Relief module, and the only source, Riverside DPSS manual DP 90-001, is not public and not in axiom-corpus, so a queued issue could not quote the rule.

• Why it isn't valid. The shared guide limits n/a to "infrastructure, data, UI, microsimulation-only or emulator-mapping changes". This PR changes Riverside GR eligibility and grants: a two-adult unit with $300 in one account moves from $0 to $438.50.

• A queued issue can quote the rule. The property rule has a public, quotable source: the DPSS fact sheet's "Total combined property cannot exceed $500" (archived 2021). The PR body already cites it.

• Precedent. The sibling Los Angeles GR fix, Count CalWORKs once in Los Angeles County General Relief income #9916 (merged 2026-10-12), filed TheAxiomFoundation/rulespec-us#1522 queued, blocked on source ingest axiom-corpus#784. Its proposed path is us-ca/policies/la-county-dpss/gr/....

• Context. axiom-oracles' bridges/program_surfaces/us.yaml marks ca_riv_general_relief as axiom_status: deferred_jurisdiction. That is worth recording in the issue, but the guide doesn't list it as an n/a ground.

• Fix: file a dispatch-ready, pe-parity rulespec-us issue for the Riverside half, on the Fix MA excess exemption logic #1522 model:

  • an ingest blocker for the DPSS fact sheet;
  • the verbatim "Total combined property cannot exceed $500";
  • a required output for unit-level countable property;
  • companion tests from the fact sheet;
  • the per-earner deduction rule recorded as blocked on obtaining DP 90-001 p. 20.

  Then change that half of the line to <issue> queued. If maintainers agree that deferred_jurisdiction programs are out of scope, cite that status instead of "not public".

2. The PR body says every new case fails on main. Three pass on main, and one can't detect the bug it names.

• Where: PR body, "Tests": "Every new case fails on main and passes here (I ran each file against main's Riverside code)".
• Reproduced. I ran the PR's new and changed Riverside YAML files against the merge-base code. main hasn't touched these files since. Result: 10 failed and 11 passed. These three new cases pass on the old code:
  • ca_riv_general_relief_countable_property_value.yaml Case 2 (line 22). On the old code the variable was person-level and returned [200, 200, 200]. A scalar 200 expectation broadcasts across that array and passes. So the case labelled "countable vehicle value counts once in a three-person unit" cannot detect multi-counting. The bug is caught only by ca_riv_general_relief_property_eligible.yaml Case 5.
  • ca_riv_general_relief_property_eligible.yaml Case 4 (line 37), "$300 in each of two accounts fails". The old code gives 1,200, which also fails. That makes it a guard against over-correction, not a regression test.
  • integration.yaml Case 10 (line 251). For a one-person single filer, the old additional_medicare_tax liability (0.9% × (300,000 − 200,000) / 12 = 75) and state_withheld_income_tax equal the new person-level amounts.
• Fix:
  • Make property-value Case 2 discriminating. For example, give person3 personal_property: 50 and expect 250. The old code would return [200, 200, 250].
  • Reword the PR-body sentence to say which cases are regressions (fail on main) and which are guards.

3. The new parameter's description doesn't follow the house template.

• Where: policyengine_us/parameters/gov/irs/payroll/medicare/additional/withholding_threshold.yaml:1: "Employers withhold the Additional Medicare Tax from the wages they pay an employee above this amount in a calendar year, regardless of the employee's filing status."
• The template. It is "[Jurisdiction] [verb] ... this amount ...", and IRS parameters lead with the government actor (120 descriptions under parameters/gov/irs start "The IRS").
• Suggested: "The IRS requires employers to withhold the Additional Medicare Tax from an employee's wages above this amount in a calendar year, regardless of filing status."

Suggestions

1. Follow up on the property boundary. This is pre-existing, and the PR's Caveats acknowledge it.
   • ca_riv_general_relief_property_eligible.py:16 tests total_property_value < p.limit, so exactly $500 fails.
   • The public fact sheet says "Total combined property cannot exceed $500" (#page=1), so $500 passes.
   • The contributor's manual summary linked from California Riverside County General Relief Program #6252 contradicts itself: "Countable property must not exceed $500 (p.22)" and "Eligibility is established if countable property is less than $500".
   • Open an issue, and pin whichever rule is chosen with a $500 boundary test. No new test covers the boundary.
2. Give the property variable a public reference. The PR's case rests on "combined" property, but ca_riv_general_relief_countable_property_value has no reference, and every Riverside parameter reference is title-only ("The program manual is not publicly available"). Add the archived fact sheet (dpss-general-assistance.pdf#page=1) as the variable's reference, and optionally to property/limit.yaml.
3. Follow-up issue on deductions (documented, out of scope).
   • ca_withheld_income_tax is estimated from the person's whole AGI. Withholding attributable to a pension or interest is still deducted from that person's wages, as the PR's Caveats say.
   • The manual summary also lists "Federal, state, and local taxes" (p. 20). The deduction list has no federal income tax withholding, and no person-level federal withholding variable exists.
   • The Alameda analog the PR cites counts payroll deductions only "when deducted from the gross earnings by the employer" (GA Handbook 90-05.151).
4. Put the one-employer simplification in documentation. additional_medicare_tax_withheld.py:18-20 explains in a code comment that wages "are not split by employer, so this treats them as paid by one". 26 CFR 31.3102-4(a) has each employer disregard "any wages ... paid to the employee by another employer", so a multi-job earner's actual withholding can be lower. Add one sentence to the documentation string (line 8) so API users see it.

Verified correct

• The rule.
  • Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 17001 has each county "adopt standards of aid and care for the indigent and dependent poor" (text), under the § 17000 duty to "relieve and support" them.
  • Riverside's fact sheet gives unit-size limits ("Income limit for one (1) person is $326; two (2) persons is $436") and "Total combined property cannot exceed $500" (#page=1). The limits match the model's needs standards (223 + 92 + 11; 257 + 160 + 19).
  • The grant (ca_riv_general_relief, SPMUnit) and the property limit are per unit. Payroll deductions are per earner.
• The bug is real and the fix is right.
  • Core 3.26's map_result projects group values onto persons with no how, as the PR describes.
  • Every remaining Riverside deduction source is Person-level: ca_withheld_income_tax, employee_social_security_tax, employee_medicare_tax, additional_medicare_tax_withheld, traditional_ira_contributions.
  • The SPMUnit STOCK property variable adds the SPM-unit cash and vehicle amounts once and sums personal_property. The month-period integration output of 300 confirms STOCK, with no ÷12.
• Base vs head probes, 2024-01, Riverside:
  • Two adults, $300 in one account: countable [300, 300] becomes 300. Eligibility goes false → true. In the PR's Case 8 setup, GR goes $0 → $438.50. In my variant where the 65-year-old receives SSI, GR goes $0 → $328.50, the size-1 grant.
  • Three adults, $4,850 of vehicles: [200, 200, 200] becomes 200, and the unit becomes eligible.
  • Pension/wages couple: deductions [31.80, 62.40] become [31.80, 30.60], countable income 337.60 → 369.40, and GR $100.90 → $69.10. This matches the PR body.
  • SSI member plus an earner, $200 cash each: [400, 400] becomes 400. The unit becomes eligible for 326 + 2.50 − 277.05 = $51.45.
  • Counter-examples unchanged:
    • a single adult with $4,800 of wages and $400 cash;
    • two roommates in separate tax units;
    • a married couple with $3,000 of wages each (no CA withholding).
• The withholding variable.
  • It implements "only ... to the extent to which the taxpayer receives wages from the employer in excess of $200,000, and the employer may disregard the amount of wages received by such taxpayer's spouse" (26 U.S.C. 3102(f)(1)).
  • It also implements "This rule applies regardless of the employee's filing status or other income" (26 CFR 31.3102-4(a)).
  • The base is payroll_tax_gross_wages, which keeps 401(k) deferrals in, as Medicare wages do. No self-employment income is included.
  • Both new references corroborate the $200,000.
• Callers (grep at the head).
  • ca_riv_general_relief_countable_property_value is read only by ca_riv_general_relief_property_eligible.
  • The deduction variable is read only by ca_riv_general_relief_net_earned_income.
  • additional_medicare_tax_withheld and withholding_threshold are used only by the Riverside list and the new variable.
  • ca_riv_general_relief feeds no benefit, net-income or poverty aggregate. It appears only in programs.yaml. So there's no microsimulation effect on household net income, poverty or the budget.
  • No partner test sets or asserts the re-entitied variable. The Riverside partner cases are single-person or in_riv: false.
• Tests.
  • 53/53 YAML cases pass at the head across gov/local/ca/riv/general_relief/** and additional_medicare_tax_withheld.yaml.
  • The seeded invariant test passes (test_seeded_population). The Hypothesis-decorated test isn't installed locally, but it ran green in CI. Its settings (derandomize=True, health-check suppression, deadline=None) match its siblings.
  • All periods are plain (2024, 2024-01, 2025).
• Hand checks:
  • CA withholding on a $30,000 pension: (107.56 + 2% × (30,000 − 5,540 − 10,756)) / 12 = 31.80.
  • $300,000 of wages:
    • Social Security: 6.2% × 168,600 / 12 = 871.10.
    • Medicare: 362.50.
    • Additional Medicare: 0.9% × 100,000 / 12 = 75.
    • CA withholding: 107.56 + 294.86 + 589.84 + 937.26 + 1,179.20 + 9.3% × (294,460 − 70,606), all ÷ 12 = 1,993.93.
    • Total 3,302.53.
  • Two earners: 560 × 7.65% + 1% × 1,180 / 12 = 43.82, and 30 × 7.65% = 2.30.
  • Integration Case 10: 1,600 − (871.10 + 362.50 + 75 + 165.64 / 12) = 277.60, so 326 + 2.50 − 277.60 = 50.90.
  • Integration Case 9: 436 + 2.50 − 369.40 = 69.10.
  • Property Case 3: 150 + 200 + (4,700 − 4,650) + 50 + 75 = 525.
  • CFR examples: [0, 900] withheld against a joint liability of 0.9% × 150,000 = 1,350; and [0, 0] against 810.
  • Integration Case 2's change from [38.63, 0.38] to [38.63, 0]: person2 has no AGI, so ca_withheld_income_tax is 0.
• Code patterns. The code is vectorized (max_) and has no hard-coded policy values. The reference is a tuple. Parameter metadata is complete (unit, period, label, two section-anchored references). The changelog fragment changelog.d/fix-riverside-gr-group-projection.fixed.md is top-level and fixed.

Axiom line assessment

The line has two halves.

• Federal half: valid encoded-correct. us:statutes/26/3102/f/1#additional_medicare_withholding_wages_subject_to_subsection_a is not unrelated: it is the provision behind the PR's new additional_medicare_tax_withheld.
  • The module exists at rulespec-us f468c8da (a 2026-10-04 merge to main). It is unchanged on main since 2026-06-10.
  • Its formula is max(0, taxpayer_wages_received_from_employer − 200000).
  • Its .test.yaml contains both named companion cases:
    • additional_medicare_withholding_applies_only_to_employer_wages_above_threshold: $250,000 gives $50,000 subject. That is the base of the PR's Case 2: 0.9% × 50,000 = 450.
    • additional_medicare_withholding_zero_at_threshold: $200,000, matching the PR's Case 1.
  • The rate rule us:statutes/26/3101/b/2#additional_medicare_tax_rate is 0.009.
• Riverside half: not a valid n/a. See Should address 1.

CI status

All green at the head: 35/35 checks pass (gh pr checks 9901). They include the 22 Full Suite jobs (Microsimulation among them), Household API Partners, Lint, the changelog check and the smoke imports.

That run predates #9897. CI on the merged result would fail test_known_violations_only_shrink (Critical 1). The PR touches no partner test files.

Branch status

• Position: 184 commits behind main, 1 ahead.
• Merge: git merge-tree --write-tree PolicyEngine/main 3f7cd2fbee merges cleanly with no textual conflicts. main has not touched any Riverside GR, Medicare payroll or ca_withheld_income_tax file since the merge-base.
• Semantic conflict: the KNOWN_VIOLATIONS ratchet (Critical 1).
• Overlapping open PR: Count a Montana casualty loss once per joint return and only for the spouse who had it #9888 (Montana casualty loss) deletes the mt_misc_deductions entry from the same KNOWN_VIOLATIONS set. Whichever lands second resolves a trivial conflict there.

Verdict: REQUEST_CHANGES

[DTrim99]

The unit-level property test and per-earner deductions match the sources, and the federal 3102(f)(1) withholding examples hold. Details in the comment above. C1: merged with current main, the code-health ratchet fails. #9897 lists all four Riverside edges in KNOWN_VIOLATIONS, and this PR fixes them, so test_known_violations_only_shrink errors. Rebase and delete the four ca_riv tuples. Should items: S1, the Riverside half of the axiom line uses an n/a reason the guide doesn't allow, so file a queued pe-parity issue as #9916 did; S2, three cases the PR body says fail on main actually pass, and property-value Case 2 can't catch multi-counting; S3, the withholding_threshold description.