Macro revisions versus new-period information

Three values, two different comparisons

The bridge accepts an originally reported prior level, its revised value for that same period and a new-period level. All three must represent compatible positive quantities. Comparing new with original combines revision and period movement. Comparing new with revised uses the later information set for the period-to-period growth rate. Neither label is automatically preferable; name the question each answers. A change in units, seasonal adjustment or statistical scope can invalidate the comparison even when every entered number passes syntax checks. The tool cannot discover such source defects from values alone.

Percentage-point contributions need one common base

Subtract original from revised to obtain the level revision, and revised from new for the comparable-period difference. Both differences can be divided by the original base to form additive percentage-point contributions to the original-base headline. The period growth rate instead divides by the revised base. Adding it directly to the revision rate mixes denominators. The multiplicative bridge preserves those bases and reconstructs the headline. Correct arithmetic explains entered values but supplies no forecast expectations, market reaction or official source authentication. Keep those absent objects outside the result.

A revision can offset or amplify the movement

An upward prior revision can make a small new-period move accompany a larger original-base headline. A downward revision can coexist with a larger comparable-period gain. The headline can also be unchanged while revision and period contributions offset. Such cases are not contradictory. The seven teaching scenarios expose these possibilities with complete declared inputs. They are not estimated probabilities or a claim one pattern is common in a particular indicator. A future actual article should retain source definitions and all predecessor values rather than select the most dramatic comparison.

Know what the bridge does not implement

The worksheet performs a relationship among three compatible positive levels. It does not reconcile chained-dollar components, adjust a series for seasonality, recover missing vintages or calculate a consensus surprise. It is not a forecast model or a trading signal. The method's assumptions should appear before a conclusion such as acceleration is strengthened. A materially changed source convention may need a different comparison rather than an extra decimal. The complete authored dossier demonstrates that decision with real-source and financial-result fields left absent, rather than manufacture an official macro finding.

Authored editorial case

Authored case: 100, 102 and 103 produce an original-base headline of 3%. Revision contributes 2 percentage points on that base and period movement contributes 1. The comparable-period rate is about 0.980392%, because its base is 102. These entered levels are invented, not a current release. The bridge explains why 2 plus 0.980392 is not the 3% headline without rounding it into a false sum. Actual economic meaning, surprise and tradability remain uncomputed.

Primary mechanisms and evidence scope

Source desk review: 14 October 2026. These primary destinations define their own statistical, account or publication objects. They do not document an FTM interview, respondent panel, private audit or successful trade. Exact values need their own original release, units, vintage and access record.

• BEA national-account methodologies
• decimal.js arithmetic contract