Audits
Officials expect the capital gains tax to survive I-645; the legal question is untested.
Version 3. 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 3 | 5/5 |
| Version 1 | 4/5 |
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 officials expect the tax to survive and the legal question is untested. The OFM fiscal statement and AG explanatory statement support the first half, and the article says no court has ruled, which supports the second.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
The True finding matches the answer and conclusion. The collection figures in context and stakes agree. The objection responses are consistent with the body, including the Heywood typo correction and the No campaign's 'real question' wording.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion gives a two-part reason for True: official assumptions plus the untested ban wording, supported by the Quinn 'measured by' language. It also notes that the official statements do not analyze the ban's reach, so the reasoning follows from the evidence.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Each cited source is on topic for its use: the voters' pamphlet text, the RCW, Quinn, the OFM and AG statements, the party and independent legal analyses, the news reports with Heywood and Spitzer quotes, DOR collections, the session law, and the Petter case tracker.
-
Pass Common questions answered
There are five objections, and each response addresses its question: the Yes repeal claim, the No likely claim, the Quinn argument, the Heywood typo, and the official analyses.
Coverage: I read only the article payload and the source text supplied in the input. I did not open sources or the web, and I did not verify takeaway quotes against sources. Every source takeaway in the input carries status 'not yet checked', so I treated them as unchecked and relied on them only as quoted text. The key points marked established are not backed by checked takeaways in this input. I reviewed the title, claim, finding, answer, conclusion, description, key points, evidence summaries, objections and sources list. Items for the source auditors, not findings here: the dor-collections takeaway quote shows only the 2025 figure while its statement cites 2022 to 2024 amounts; the obj-quinn response attributes a constitutional-versus-statutory point to Wallin that none of his listed takeaways states; and the Peterson case concerns drug sentencing but is cited for a general statutory canon.