============================================================================== RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE -- EVERY NUMBER, PRINTED FROM CODE ============================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLOCK A -- the fifty-jurisdiction medians and Massachusetts's distance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: data/fifty-state/tier-50-2026-09-05.json (Georgia held out; see docs/2026-09-05-georgia-worked-example.md). S1 = equal parenting time, S2 = the other parent has primary custody. Monthly figures throughout, as the tier-50 dataset states them. S1 (equal time): ranked jurisdictions 50 median $ 2,172.95/mo Massachusetts $ 4,388.48/mo rank 1 of 50 MA above the median $ 2,215.52/mo 102.0% S2 (primary custody): ranked jurisdictions 50 median $ 2,859.29/mo Massachusetts $ 4,714.22/mo rank 2 of 50 MA above the median $ 1,854.93/mo 64.9% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLOCK B -- Washington, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, New York ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Basis and cap note: data/fifty-state/ceilings-2026-09-06.json. Washington S1 $ 2,819.56/mo S2 $ 2,819.56/mo basis: net cap: $600,000/yr ($50,000/month combined net income (RCW 26.19.020, eff. 1/1/2026)) -- Raised from the $480,000/yr figure in Brattle Figure 34 (based on the pre-2026 statute) by 2025 c 272 s 14, effective January 1, 2026. Per task instructions the profile's newer figure is used here; Brattle's is recorded separately. California S1 $ 2,424.32/mo S2 $ 3,436.04/mo basis: net cap: no stated ceiling -- No stated combined- or obligor-income figure at which the schedule stops; other model. See cap field (may be truncated) for the mechanism. row note: attack-corrected figures (EITC input) New Jersey S1 $ 3,002.31/mo S2 $ 3,002.31/mo basis: net cap: $187,200/yr ($3,600/week combined net income (Appendix IX-F, revised eff. 9/1/2025)) -- This is a genuine 2025 revision, LOWER than Brattle Figure 34's $208,000 (based on the pre-revision Appendix IX-F table). Per task instructions, the profile's newer figure is used; Brattle's is recorded separately. Connecticut S1 $ 3,138.20/mo S2 $ 3,138.20/mo basis: net cap: $312,000/yr ($6,000.00/week) -- Basis corrected to net 2026-09-06: the citation itself says combined NET income. New York S1 $ 4,067.61/mo S2 $ 4,067.61/mo basis: gross cap: $193,000/yr ($193,000.00/year) Washington present at the ranked tier: True California present at the ranked tier: True ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLOCK C -- candidate credits for equal parenting time, worked example ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Payor $201,000/yr gross, health premium $43; recipient $570/wk gross, health premium $33; three children; no child care. Sources: worksheet.py, box1_fix.py (variants A, B, C), and the linear rule applied here to worksheet.py's own Box 2 figure. Today's Box 2 (primary) order $ 1,087.90/wk $ 4,714.22/mo Today's Box 1 (shared) order $ 1,012.73/wk $ 4,388.48/mo candidate wk mo vs Box1 vs median vs WA vs CA (i) Variant A -- 6e limitation moved to the transfer $ 935.06 $4,051.93 -7.7% 86.5% 43.7% 67.1% (ii) Variant B -- cross-credit at duplication 1.5 $ 701.30 $3,038.95 -30.8% 39.9% 7.8% 25.4% (iii) Variant C at equal time (payor 50% of overnights) $ 701.30 $3,038.95 -30.8% 39.9% 7.8% 25.4% (iv) Linear time-proportional discount at 50% of overnights $ 543.95 $2,357.11 -46.3% 8.5% -16.4% -2.8% (v-a) Linear time-proportional discount at 45% of overnights $ 707.13 $3,064.24 -30.2% 41.0% 8.7% 26.4% (v-b) Linear time-proportional discount at 40% of overnights $ 870.32 $3,771.38 -14.1% 73.6% 33.8% 55.6% ('vs median/WA/CA' = the candidate's monthly figure, percent above (+) or below (-) the fifty-state S1 median / Washington's S1 / California's S1.) Check: Variant C at equal time reproduces Variant B exactly, as box1_fix.py's own docstring says ('at equal time this is identical to B'): True ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLOCK D -- the Box 1 reduction that reaches the median, WA, and CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Starting point: today's Box 1 order $1,012.73/wk ($4,388.48/mo). To reach the fifty-state S1 median ($2,172.95/mo): cut $511.27/wk ($26,586/yr), 50.5% off today's Box 1 order. To reach Washington's S1 ($2,819.56/mo): cut $362.06/wk ($18,827/yr), 35.8% off today's Box 1 order. To reach California's S1 ($2,424.32/mo): cut $453.27/wk ($23,570/yr), 44.8% off today's Box 1 order. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLOCK E -- corpus check: was gross-vs-net deferred, and how many times ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Commentary 2017: 6 block(s) in Guidelines.flow.txt, 0 sentence(s) containing both 'gross' and 'net': Commentary 2018: 2 block(s) in Guidelines.flow.txt, 0 sentence(s) containing both 'gross' and 'net': Commentary 2021: 6 block(s) in Guidelines.flow.txt, 0 sentence(s) containing both 'gross' and 'net': Commentary 2023: 2 block(s) in Guidelines.flow.txt, 0 sentence(s) containing both 'gross' and 'net': Commentary 2025: 5 block(s) in Guidelines.flow.txt, 0 sentence(s) containing both 'gross' and 'net': Total sentences with both terms inside a Guidelines.flow.txt commentary block: 0 'as prior task forces' across data/extracted/*.flow.txt: 1 hit(s) Econreview.flow.txt: "Again in this review, as prior task forces have done, the Task Force discussed the use of gross versus net income in the guidelines." CONCLUSION: 0 sentence(s) mentioning both gross and net appear inside the year-tagged commentary blocks embedded in the Guidelines PDF itself (2017, 2018, 2021, 2023, 2025 all checked, zero hits). The explicit deferral -- "as prior task forces have done ... decided not to recommend a change from gross income to net income at this time" -- lives in Econreview.flow.txt, the Brattle economic review, not in the Guidelines' own embedded commentary, and it does not itself name which prior years deferred it. State it as: one document in this corpus (the 2025 economic review) records a gross-vs-net deferral and says prior task forces did the same; the Guidelines' own year-tagged commentary blocks contain no sentence discussing gross vs. net at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLOCK F -- the author's childcare recommendation, worked example ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Payor $201,000/yr gross ($43 health premium), recipient $570/wk gross ($29,640/yr, $33 health premium), three children (two under 13), Box 1, recipient pays $300/wk child care, payor pays $0 directly. Source: model/childcare_post_transfer.py (reused, not reimplemented) and model/net_position.py's analyze(). Total annual child care at issue: $15,600/yr ($300/wk) 1. Current worksheet (Line 6b on pre-order Line 3c shares) order $ 1,275.77/wk $ 5,528.34/mo payor's share of the $15,600/yr child care: 87.7% ($13,678.35/yr) after tax: payor keeps $73,493.41 recipient household holds $91,899.72 2. Childcare removed from the worksheet (each parent bears what they pay) order $ 1,012.73/wk $ 4,388.48/mo payor's share of the $15,600/yr child care: 0.0% ($ 0.00/yr) after tax: payor keeps $87,171.76 recipient household holds $78,221.37 3. Base support first, then childcare split 50-50 order $ 1,012.73/wk $ 4,388.48/mo payor's share of the $15,600/yr child care: 50.0% ($ 7,800.00/yr) after tax: payor keeps $79,371.76 recipient household holds $86,021.37 4. Post-transfer GROSS shares on Line 3a (comments' Line 6b-1 redline) order $ 1,206.08/wk $ 5,226.34/mo payor's share of the $15,600/yr child care: 64.5% ($10,054.33/yr) after tax: payor keeps $77,117.43 recipient household holds $88,275.69 5. Post-transfer NET shares (paper's version, fixed point) order $ 1,012.73/wk $ 4,388.48/mo payor's share of the $15,600/yr child care: 48.2% ($ 7,513.43/yr) after tax: payor keeps $79,658.33 recipient household holds $85,734.80 The sentence the site makes (rule 1, current worksheet): before the order, the payor's share of the parties' combined available income (Line 3c) is 87.7%; after the order, his share of POST-TRANSFER GROSS income is 64.3%; after the order, his share of POST-TRANSFER NET income is 48.2%; and child care is allocated on the 87.7% figure -- the income split BEFORE the order, not either figure after it. ============================================================================== END OF RUN ==============================================================================