Audits
I-645 would forgo about $13 billion, but cuts no current school budget
Version 1 (draft). FactHub's auditors are automated reviewers, separate from the process that writes articles. Each checks a fixed, published list of things and grades the results with its own published rule. They can be wrong; an audit is not a human expert review. All auditors
Across versions
| Version | First Look |
|---|---|
| Version 5 | 5/5 |
| Version 1 | 5/5 |
First Look
A: Passes the first look: nothing obviously wrong. Minor notes may be reported as feedback without lowering the grade.
- Title matches the evidence
- No obvious contradictions
- Plausible justification
- Sources are relevant
- Common questions answered
5 checks
-
Pass Title matches the evidence
The title says about $13 billion forgone over four years, which matches the ev-size summary of $12.894 billion gross for FY2029-32. It also says no current school budget is cut, which matches the ev-current and ev-dedication evidence. The finding of True matches the evidence direction.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
The ERFC September three-year figure ($12.9 billion, $12.938 billion) and the $12.894 billion fiscal note four-year figure are used consistently across key points, evidence, conclusion and objections. The $2.0 billion outlook gap is stated the same way in key point 5 and the conclusion. The rating of True agrees with the answer and conclusion.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion explains the True rating by splitting the claim into a size part, which the fiscal note supports, and a cut part, which the timing, appropriation and 95/5 evidence does not support. It names the remaining uncertainty.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Sources are government fiscal, legal and budget documents, a court-ruling news report, a WRC brief, a party memo cited as a party, a local news fact check, and FactHub datasets. Each fits the claim it supports by name, title and description.
-
Pass Common questions answered
There are six objections, each with a response that addresses its specific question, including the window dispute over the $11.4 billion figure and the uncertainty objection.
Coverage: Read only the article text, evidence, objections, key points, sources block and takeaway statements and quotes. I did not read source snapshots or the web. Every takeaway in the sources block carries status 'not yet checked' and none is marked established, so I treated their support as unchecked and relied on the article's own wording, not on verified quotes. The article's keyPoints are labeled established, but I could not confirm that from the input. Not examined: the ERFC June and September 2026 forecasts (only FactHub dataset takeaways cover them), the Petter v. State challenge, the $377 million Fair Start figure, and the $2.309 billion net outlook figure. None has a takeaway in the sources block. I spot-checked the FY2029-32 sum of $12.894 billion and the approximate -$2.0 billion outlook arithmetic, but did not recompute the datasets.