The bonuses reported to the Fed were in response to a demand to identify all who received bonuses "of more than $XXX amount," since the concern was about "excessive awards" to high ranking executives.

The larger amount reported to Connecticut's AG quite probably included all the bonuses, down to the guy in the mailroom who got a cup of lukewarm coffee, a stale donut, and a free ballpoint pen. (They called those bonuses at a couple of places where I've worked.)

The two different answers probably were because two different questions were asked. (Asking the right questions - or even remembering what one asked for - seems not to be a common talent in our Federal government system.)

The "binding contract" that AIG claims required them to pay the huge "executive bonuses," according to several reports, included the agreements in individual contracts that bonuses for 2008 "would not be less than 2007 bonuses" regardless of performance during 2008. Sort of a "minimum wage agreement" for executives. If the company had lost a little less, the bonuses quite probably would have been more - possibly "really big." (note: sarcasm intended)

John