Methodology

Many financial tools optimize for speed of output. This one optimizes for clarity of explanation. That means the system has to preserve enough structure for a user to see how one variable affects another rather than collapsing everything into a single recommendation.

Legibility requires discipline. Inputs must be stated, assumptions must be bounded, and outputs must be tied back to the rules that generated them.

The methodology generally uses a current-law framing because that is the only stable basis for a reproducible explanation. Future law can change. Forecasting legislative outcomes may be tempting, but it quickly mixes explanation with speculation.

That does not mean long-term scenarios are useless. It means their value comes from illustrating structure under assumptions, not claiming certainty about the future.

Methodology is not just about the rules that are included. It is also about the rules that are excluded or simplified. When the system omits a niche exception or state-specific rule, that should be treated as an intentional scope decision, not an invisible omission.

This makes the results easier to interpret correctly. Users can see what the explanation covers and where further review is appropriate.

A useful explanation should let a thoughtful reader reconstruct the logic at a high level. You should be able to understand the drivers, the thresholds, and the reasons a result changed without appealing to a black box.

That standard is demanding, but it is also the point. The methodology exists to earn understanding, not merely attention.