I would like to propose that the following line is removed from the description text for the budget element:
The total budget for an activity should be reported as a commitment in the transaction element.
Many of us have discussed this, most recently in this thread.
I do not believe this “guidance” in the spirit of the standard. Additionally, there is a (continued) high risk of confusion amongst those implementing and using IATI data - particularly in the context of renaming the Commitment transaction type to become Incoming Commitment.
I would welcome discussion / confirmation from others on this matter - flagging for Herman van Loon Murad Hirji Yohanna Loucheur Bill Anderson Andy Lulham & Martin Akerman , as they contributed to the previous discussion.
The revised budget description would then read:
The value of the aid activity’s budget for each financial quarter or year over the lifetime of the activity. The purpose of this element is to provide predictability for recipient planning on an annual basis. The status explains whether the budget being reported is indicative or has been formally committed. The value should appear within the BudgetStatus codelist. If the @status attribute is not present, the budget is assumed to be indicative. While it is useful for the sum of budgets to match the sum of commitments this is not necessarily the case, depending on a publisher’s business model and legal frameworks.