Daylight saving time began as a wartime energy measure that farmers opposed.

1. Concern (material) Sources can support their claims

   The Massachusetts farmers' lawsuit rests only on AFBF's viewpoint piece; cite a court record or a news or historical account of the suit.

   This check was judged from URLs, publishers and titles. The government sources are accountable and fit their claims: the Library of Congress exhibition, the NIST explainer, the U.S. Code via govinfo, and the DOE report via OSTI. HISTORY (A&E) and Connecticut Public are accountable publishers, fit for secondary historical reporting. afbf-dst is at fb.org/viewpoints and is described by the article as 'A viewpoint by AFBF's director of communications', which makes it an opinion piece from an advocacy group. It is valid evidence of AFBF's own view. However, it is the only support for the factual claim that Massachusetts farmers sued over DST (afbf-sued: 'They sued the state, demanding a return to Standard Time'). That claim appears in evidence:farm-opposition and in the conclusion. Other farm-opposition points are also backed by the Library of Congress and HISTORY.

   About source:afbf-dst, takeaway:afbf-sued, evidence:farm-opposition, conclusion The finding

2. Concern (minor) Conclusion rests on cited evidence

   The conclusion's detail on milking, dew, markets, trains and hired help appears in no evidence item; add a cited source for it or cut it.

   Most conclusion assertions trace to the evidence items: the 1918 date and wartime purpose, farm opposition, the 1919 repeal over Wilson's veto, the Massachusetts suit, the 1966 and 2005 laws, and the DOE 0.5% figure. One passage does not trace to any cited evidence item. The conclusion says chores 'like milking and harvesting follow sunrise and dew rather than the clock, and shifting the clock moved markets, trains and hired help out of step with the farm day.' The evidence (loc-opposed) says only 'farming schedules are based on sunrise and sunset not the clock'. No evidence item or takeaway mentions milking, dew, markets, trains or hired help. Objection 1 repeats this detail, but its cited quotes do not contain it. The conclusion also adds 'heating' to the energy offset, while evidence:energy-evidence mentions only cooling. Finally, 'confirmed by NIST' slightly overstates nist-1918, which gives only the year 1918, not the date or purpose.

   About conclusion, evidence:farm-opposition, objection:1, evidence:energy-evidence The finding

3. Concern (minor) Sources are archived

   Sources loc-exhibit, nist-dst, usc-260a, doe-edst-2008, history-dst, ctpublic-downing and afbf-dst have no archived copy; archive them with archive_source.

   None of the seven sources cited by evidence items shows an archived copy in the article payload. Each lists only a live URL: loc-exhibit, nist-dst, usc-260a, doe-edst-2008, history-dst, ctpublic-downing and afbf-dst. The image source (Wikimedia Commons) does not count.

   About source:loc-exhibit, source:nist-dst, source:usc-260a, source:doe-edst-2008, source:history-dst, source:ctpublic-downing, source:afbf-dst The finding

4. Not checked Citations support the evidence

   No source snapshot text was available to this audit. Every takeaway is marked 'not yet checked' rather than established, so none of the seven sources (loc-exhibit, nist-dst, usc-260a, doe-edst-2008, history-dst, ctpublic-downing, afbf-dst) could be confirmed to exist as cited or to support the evidence items. Some evidence wording goes beyond the quoted excerpts and needs checking once text is available. evidence:energy-evidence says cooling costs can offset lighting savings, but the quoted hist-energy and ct-energy passages do not mention cooling. evidence:farm-opposition says Massachusetts farmers sued 'over a state DST law', but the afbf-sued quote ('They sued the state, demanding a return to Standard Time') names neither the state nor a law. The version is a draft created 2026-10-31. No linkStatus information was provided, so dead-link status could not be assessed.

5. Not checked Quotes and figures match

   No source text was available, and no takeaway is established, so no quote or figure could be compared against its source. On their face, the article's figures match the takeaway quotes it relies on: March 31, 1918 (loc-wartime), 1.3 TWh and 0.5 percent per day (doe-savings, doe-small), March 8 to November 1, 2026 (nist-2026), and Pub. L. 89-387 of Apr. 13, 1966 and Pub. L. 109-58 (usc-1966, usc-2005). These quotes themselves are unverified against the sources.

6. Not checked Sources represented fairly in context

   No surrounding source text was available for any of the seven sources, so it could not be judged whether any excerpt omits material context. Several quotes contain ellipses whose omitted text could not be read, for example loc-opposed ('opposed the measure because…farming schedules') and loc-repeal ('repeal of daylight saving time…that Congress passed').

Coverage: No source text was read. No snapshots were supplied and no tools were available. All 23 takeaways across the seven sources are marked 'not yet checked', so none is established and none could be relied on. Sources not read: loc-exhibit (Library of Congress), nist-dst (NIST), usc-260a (U.S. Code via govinfo), doe-edst-2008 (DOE via OSTI), history-dst (HISTORY), ctpublic-downing (Connecticut Public) and afbf-dst (AFBF viewpoint). None has an archived copy, and no linkStatus was provided, so dead-link status is unknown. Source-fit was judged from URL, publisher and title. Conclusion tracing was judged against the article's own evidence items and takeaway quotes. Citation support, quote fidelity and source context remain NotChecked until source auditors verify the takeaways.