Audits
Washington lawmakers tapped dedicated accounts for the general fund about 80 times since 2021
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 3 | 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 80 times. The evidence lists 81-83 enacted transfers, falling to 72 and 67 under narrower definitions, and the finding is Mostly true, so the number and direction fit.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
The finding (Mostly true) matches the answer and conclusion. The per-biennium counts 8, 20 and 53 sum to the stated 81, and 81 minus 9 routine lines gives 72. The 83 and 82 counts are explained as different counting choices.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion explains that the count holds on the literal reading but depends on definitions (72, 67, 83), and that this uncertainty drives the Mostly true rating with moderate confidence. A reader can follow that.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
The sources are the FactHub transfer dataset, session laws, the RCW statute, the Senate bill report, DCYF, the Legislature's budget notes and the Research Council. Each matches the transfer count or early-learning claim it supports. The Research Council is business-funded, but its report is on the same budget topic and is disclosed in the article's limitations.
-
Pass Common questions answered
There are four objections. Each has a response that addresses its question: routine flows (72 and 67 counts), legal and normal (legal, but large lately), the early-learning promise (delays documented, no earmark), and the millionaires tax (95% already goes to the general fund).
Coverage: Read the article payload only: title, claim, finding, answer, conclusion, evidence, objections, key points, method, sources and takeaways. Did not read source snapshots, chart or dataset contents, or the web. Every takeaway in the sources block is marked 'not yet checked', so I treated none as established and judged only internal consistency and source relevance from the article's own text. I could not verify the second count of 82, the Research Council cross-check, the examples accounts or the early-learning statute text; those belong to the source auditors.