The quote below from M* is old (it refers to the 14 older bond sectors), but even then M* did its own bond fund sector analysis:

The fixed-income sectors are calculated for all domestic taxable-bond portfolios. It is based on the securities in the most recent portfolio. This data shows the percentage of bond and cash assets invested in each of the 14 fixed-income sectors.

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/DataDefs/FundPortfolio.html
The data on the Fidelity page, like the data on most third party web sites, comes from Morningstar: "Morningstar ratings and data on non-Fidelity mutual funds is provided by Morningstar, Inc."
Morningstar's curent set of bond fund sectors divides munis into taxable and tax exempt. The Fidelity page reports these for DODIX as 3.2% and 0.51% respectively. That adds up to 3.71%, the same figure as shown on M*'s own page.
I don't know why M* chose not to present this decomposition into taxable and tax exempt on its own pages, but the figures are consistent. They should be, they all come from the same Morningstar analysis.
It would be interesting to compare the figures with a those provided by a source other than M* (or D&C). Since most sites use M*, I haven't explicitly gone searching for other numbers.

FYI: There was a time when earning 1% from a short-term bond was acceptable. Five years ago, the average one-year Treasury bill yielded less than 0.2% and many money-market funds paid essentially nothing. Ultrashort-term bond funds, which took on a little more risk, but paid a bit more, were one of the few viable options for conservative investors seeking income from their cash.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/higher-rates-produce-more-short-term-bond-alternatives-51554512253?mod=past_editions

@msf You mentioned the muni's portion of your fund example. Is this composition listing at Fidelity valid relative to the other sites info you've viewed?

Fidelity composition view of DODIX
Thank you,
Catch

I'd suggest skipping M* entirely when researching bond fund allocation. It's easy to find almost any fund's allocation, using their info, and that info usually has the distinct advantage of being basically accurate. M* bollixed up their bond analysis several years ago, and it's really not worth the time using them for bond allocation info any longer.

You seem to be conflating "allocation" with "analysis". M* reports funds' allocations exactly as reported by the funds. On the other hand, M* calculates its own weighted average of credit quality. It does this because a simple average isn't meaningful.
To understand this, think about star ratings. M* grades on a bell curve. That makes sense because fewer than 20% of funds perform at 'A' (5*) level, while lots more than 20% perform at a mediocre 'C' (3*) level.
If you don't like this bell curve, you can always look at Lipper ratings, which rate fully 20% of the funds "A' (5). But it's not as helpful. (I think the Lipper ratings are more helpful because they rate different aspects of the fund, like consistency and returns, but in terms of the scale they use, their unweighted scale isn't as helpful.)
Similar idea with credit ratings. According to S&P data (see figure below), virtually no AAA bonds (0.00%) default within a year, almost as few (0.17%) BBB bonds default, while a quarter (26.82%) of CCC bonds default within the span of a year. Now that default doesn't mean they go bust, more likely they just stop paying interest.
Still, think about a portfolio containing one AAA bond and one CCC bond, vs. a portfolio containing two BBB bonds. The latter has less than a 0.34% chance of any bond defaulting. The former has better than a 1/4 chance of defaulting, though the impact is cut in half since the CCC bond represents only half the portfolio.
Both portfolios "average" BBB in credit rating, if we take a simple average. That average doesn't tell us anything; these two portfolios have such disparate risk profiles.
What we can do with the first portfolio is weight the bond ratings by their impact. So while we might rate AAA as "A" (giving it a numeric value of 1), we might rate CCC bonds as 'Z' (giving it a numeric value of 26, corresponding to its 26+% chance of defaulting). Now when we average the two bonds, we get somewhere around 13, which might correspond to "high quality" junk.
That gives us a better sense of what to expect from the portfolio in terms of defaults. If getting a sense of portfolio default risk is what we want from an average credit rating, then this method of averaging is more meaningful.
If what we want from an average credit rating is to compress the bond allocation (how many A's, how many B's, etc.) down to a single number, then a simple average is better. Personally, if I want to know what the allocation of bonds is, I just look at a bar chart or table showing the whole distribution. It's not as though there are that many grades of bonds that the picture is confusing.

I offer no opinion about the fund or the reported majority of its holdings, but this is what is discovered about the reported debt form.
Residential Subprime Mezzanine debt

Related... Job data has not slow down
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/march-us-jobs-report-morning-brief-101955875.html

FYI: Global stocks made modest gains Friday after President Trump struck an upbeat tone about the continuing U.S.-China trade talks but failed to set a date for a final summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
European gains were muted, with the pan-continental Stoxx Europe 600 inching 0.1% higher in the opening minutes of trading. Gains were led by the index’s basic resources sector which climbed 0.7%. Those gains however were balanced by a 0.5% decline for the index’s real-estate sector.
Markets in Asia turned in a more mixed performance, with a number of major indexes closed for holidays. Japan’s Nikkei climbed 0.3%, lifted by gains for Sony and Nintendo and a softer yen, while Australia’s ASX 200 dropped 0.8%. Stock markets in Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan were closed.
In the U.S., futures pointed to opening rises of 0.2% for both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500.
Germany’s DAX index lagged behind its counterparts in Paris and London as positive data on the nation’s industrial production failed to allay investors’ concerns about country’s economy. The index was flat while the U.K’s FTSE 100 and France’s CAC 40 made gains of 0.1%.
Separate figures released Thursday showed orders for Germany’s manufacturing sector slumped 4.2% in February, increasing the likelihood that Europe’s flagship economy could contract in the first half of 2019.
Investors were awaiting data due Friday on the state of the U.S. labor market. Concerns about signs of slowing growth across the world have weighed on investors this year, with data from China and Europe pointing to slowdowns and increasing the focus on U.S. economic data.
Regards,
Ted
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-edge-up-as-trump-signals-trade-progress-11554452170
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-04/asia-stocks-to-start-mixed-as-trade-deal-not-ready-markets-wrap
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-chip-stock-market-leaders-amd-broadcom-apple/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/stock-market-us-china-trade-nonfarm-payrolls-in-focus.html
U.K.:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/oil-stocks-and-miners-boost-britains-main-index-to-six-month-high-idUKKCN1RH0NJ
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/europe-stocks/european-shares-little-changed-before-u-s-jobs-data-idUSL3N21N18I
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nikkei-gains-on-renewed-optimism-over-us-china-trade-talks-2019-04-04/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/us-bonds-treasury-yields-in-focus-amid-auctions-fed-speeches.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/forex-market-us-china-trade-optimism-us-jobs-report-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/oil-market-us-crude-inventories-tightening-global-supply-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/gold-market-dollar-moves-us-china-trade-talks-in-focus.html
Current Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

IOFIX was near the bottom of the barrel in a robust Bondland until the past month where it has suddenly surged ahead. . Except for the new offering EIXIX which @The Shadow mentioned here, IOFIX leads all the others this year in the non agency rmbs arena. I still think IOFIX is an excellent and well managed fund. My problem with IOFIX was its one day decline late last year of 1.29%. Regardless, junk corporates from day one this year have been and remain the place to be in Bondville with gains in the 7% to 8% and more range. Even the normally staid (compared to its peers) Vanguard junk fund VWEHX is having a bang up year over 8% YTD. Four times out of the past five negative years in junk they came back the following year with double digit returns. So let’s hope this will be 5 out of 6 as last year was negative.

Thank you, @MikeM. I'm too lazy to go to the website, but M* shows it has apparently re-shuffled: 81% asset-backed. And 9% Agency MBS CMO. And 4% Non-agency RMBs. And 4% Commercial MBS.
I like my core bond fund, though it's billed as "Global Multi-Asset Bond," which is PRSNX. Anyhow, it is my anchor now, at over 50% of total portfolio. I'm growing my supplemental bond fund for the purpose of monthly income, which is PTIAX. I know it is not a "core" fund, either. It shows 30% Non-agency Residential MBS and 17% Commercial MBS and 7% corporate bonds and 4% Agency MBS CMO and 4% asset-backed.
Biggest difference between them is in the Asset-backed category. Quite a chunk of difference between them in the Agency MBS CMO category, too.
IOFIX doesn't hold any Corporates to speak of, apparently.
PTIAX is giving me a bit better dividend each month, but that's not etched in stone, either.
PTIAX suits me re: risk/reward profile, in category: Low/High.
IOFIX, so far this year, has produced a tiny bit more in share value at +2.59% vs +2.4% for PTIAX.
Just wanting to look under the hood. Unless things go to shit, maybe IOFIX could be a tertiary source of income, down the line. Its risk/reward profile looks good, too.

$50K minimum required.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/889519/000093247119006752/ps1498042019.htm
1 ps1498042019.htm VANGUARD MANAGED PAYOUT SUPPLEMENT
Vanguard Managed Payout Fund
Supplement to the Prospectus
The board of trustees of Vanguard Managed Payout Fund has approved a
reallocation of a portion of the Fund’s assets from its wholly owned subsidiary to
the proposed Vanguard Commodity Strategy Fund. The Managed Payout Fund is
expected to implement this change in the coming months should Vanguard
Commodity Strategy Fund become available for sale.
Vanguard Managed Payout Fund does not have a fixed asset allocation. As
described in the Fund’s prospectus, the exact proportion of each asset class or
investment may be changed to reflect shifts in the advisor’s risk and return
expectations. This change is not expected to increase the Fund’s expense ratio.
The Fund’s prospectus will be amended to reflect the Fund’s intention to gain
exposure to the commodities markets by investing a portion of its assets in
Vanguard Commodity Strategy Fund. References to the Fund’s wholly owned
subsidiary will be deleted from the prospectus.
© 2019 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.
PS 1498 042019

Thanks for the info on the Lipper category, msf. I was thinking of M*, which uses a cutoff of a duration of 4.5y (not 5y as I thought I remembered) between short and intermediate, shown in their category classification document, and like you said, that makes ISHAX M* intermediate. NVHAX comes in (right now, at least) just inside short duration territory by the M* measure.

Thx David. I think Core is still a fine fund, especially now that they dumped WFC. For the moment that's the main holding in my Roth IRA.
BTW what's the plural of Parnassus? Parnassi? :)

Quick note on Parnussuses. There are 18 socially-conscious Great Owl funds (inception to date). Only one of those is from Parnassus. If I modify the criteria, for example a 5-year rating of "5" without the GO requirement, that pops to three funds: Midcap, Core and Endeavor. That said, they're an exceptionally solid family. I do worry about the consequence of Mr. Dodson's (eventual) departure but investors - ESG and otherwise - really have little to complain about.

Lipper categories:
SMD - Short Municipal Debt Funds - Funds invest in municipal debt issues with dollar-weighted average maturities of less than three years.
SIM - Short-Intmdt Municipal Debt Funds - Funds invest in municipal debt issues with dollar-weighted average maturities of one to five years.
ISHAX has an average effective weighted maturity of 9.37 years. (Effective maturity is generally shorter than stated maturity because it incorporates the likelihood of being called.) That makes it clearly not short term by Lipper definitions. Likewise, M* shows the fund as intermediate term.

Nicely articulated by @LewisBraham. Thank you. (I too can do without Suzie O.) :)
Re “aged scotch” ... Just for accuracy: All scotch is aged (minimum of 3 years in oak casks - by law). That’s the only kind there is.
Here’s the exact language from the Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009 (SWR) : “ (Must be) wholly matured in an excise warehouse in Scotland in oak casks of a capacity not exceeding 700 litres (185 US gal; 154 imp gal) for at least three years”
Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_whisky

Munis are issued with long maturities, so < 5 is generally considered short duration in the asset class. Lower credit (but nowhere near the risk of similarly rated corporates, as munis are) with some rate sensitivity isn't a bad setup for an unofficial barbell approach.
P.S. Matt, I use NVHAX quite a bit. I don't invest in IG munis much at all these days; absent leverage, their yields have been pretty paltry for years.
I do use muni CEFs (Pimco, Invesco, and Nuveen have some pretty decent ones), but not when they're at high valuations like they are now. Pimco's are generally at high premia now, and they just announced some distribution cuts early this week. I'll own a muni CEF or two when the next selloff comes along. You might look into that route, but it does take some time to get your personal investment schtick down with CEFs.
Good luck -- AJ

For me, I'm now about 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity after recently completing a portfolio rebalance and reconfiruration process which I started at the first part of the 4th quarter. My reblance threshold is +(or -) 2% for my income and equity areas while I generally let cash float. Should stocks pull back (triggering a rebalance) I'll simply buy some more of them maintaining my asset allocation within the portfolio's guardrails. Also, I can tactically overweight equities, if felt warranted, by up to +5% without triggering a forced rebalance buy buying an equity ballast or spiff position and reducing cash by a like amount along with changing my target allocation in equities form 40% to 45% while leaving the range parameters set for the equity area at 35 to 45% with the neutral allocation being left at 40%.
The markets are going to do what they are going to do. With this, and from my perspective, the best thing I can do is to build into my portfolio flexability to handle and deal with the forever changing market conditions. For me, my "all weather" asset allocation does this. The benefit of this asset allocation is that it provides me sufficient income, maximizes diversification, minimizes volatility, and provides long-term returns.
In addition, if you missed the thread titled "How Much Investment Risk Should You Take?" I have provided a link to it. Within the article is a link that provides information as how different asset allocation models have performed by year and over time. The 50/50 model has averaged an 8.5% return over an extended period of time.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/48886/how-much-investment-risk-should-you-take#latest
I wish all ... "Good Investing."

FYI: If spending $5 a day on fancy coffee puts your retirement at risk, you’ve got bigger problems.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-03/buying-a-latte-every-day-won-t-ruin-your-retirement

@Derf: I try not to post over something that has already been put up. But, at times, it happens.
Perhaps, the class needed another lecture on the subject and there just might be some that simply missed its first posting as I did. Often times, a professor will offer the same lecture more than once. And, besides @hank, @Old_Joe and @MikeM had a great discussion and exchange going between themselves on this very subject; but, under another thread topic.
For me, what is important about this study, with me being in retirement, is that it reflects that a 50/50 portfolio can substain a 4% withdrawal rate and grow principal over time as the 50/50 portfolio averaged an 8.5% return over time. I'm thinking, the 4% withdrawal rate would have to be computed on the portfolio's average value. This is why I set my own withdrawal rate to generally not exceed a sum of what one-half of my five year average return has been. I found in doing this about twenty years ago when I governed my parents portfolio's provided them ample income plus grew their principal. Now, I have adopted this very same distribution withdrawal method.
Sorry @Ted. My bad. I simply missed it's first posting.
Skeet