There are a couple aspects of the CHAS data about which users should be aware and that are not well documented.
If you are familiar with how federal housing funds works, you probably know that what we call "80%" of Area Median Income (AMI) is often not actually 80% of the AMI figures released by HUD. This is because under certain circumstances the 80% AMI figure is subject to a national cap. Similarly, I believe that the 50% figure is capped at times. However, in other cases the "caps" can be higher than the 50% or 80% figures you would get using just multiplying the the AMI. Here is an example from the city where I work (Note that the 100% of HUD median figures in the table are the 100% values published by HUD):
https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing/resourcesandadditionalinformation
The income levels used to produce the CHAS data are based off the 50% and 80% figures for the local metro or state taking into account the cap. If you try to reproduce the numbers using PUMS data that uses "actual" 80% you may end up with widely differing percentages than you will find in the CHAS data.
Another aspect of CHAS that is poorly documented, and which we learned about several years ago after tracking down the person at HUD who was then responsible for producing the CHAS at the time, is that the income cut offs used in the CHAS are derived from proportions of the 80% figure. What this means is that if the 80% figure for your metro is "actually" let us say 75% of AMI, then the income cut off used to produce the 100% cut off is 75% * 1.25 = 93.75%.