Few I-645 news stories said no current budget relies on the tax

1. Pass Title matches the evidence

   The title 'Few I-645 news stories said no current budget relies on the tax' matches the counts: 2 of 58 mainstream stories stated the fact in their own voice and 7 in any voice, and 9 of 58 stated the relief survives. The claim and answer use the same mainstream figures. The title does not name the mainstream subset, but the conservative counts (1 of 16, 0 of 16) also fit 'few', so this is not an overstatement.

2. Pass No obvious contradictions

   Finding True, answer, conclusion and key points agree. The 2 plus 5 split (2 in own voice, 5 more as a Yes-side claim) matches the 7-in-any-voice figure in the source takeaway. Conservative figures (12 of 16 last word Yes, 9 of 16 no No-side response, 5 of 16 relief) match between the objection response, key points and source takeaways. The 'Conservative' 1 of 16 and 0 of 16 outlook figures are consistent with the text.

3. Pass Plausible justification

   The conclusion explains the True rating with the counts (2 and 9 of 58, 9 of 12 unchallenged, 5 of 7 contextualized), the blind second-coder agreement of 20 of 20, and states the moderate-confidence limits (search-based sample, blocked outlets, web text for TV). That reasoning follows from the evidence presented.

4. Pass Sources are relevant

   Each cited source matches its use: the Washington Research Council brief and AG explanatory statement for the two facts, the session law for Sec. 1202, Thurston County ruling coverage for Egeler, KXLY and Seattle Times fact checks for the $13 billion point, and the coded news stories for their quoted claims. The Deseret fundraising figures are attributed to Public Disclosure Commission records that are not listed as a source; this is a gap in sourcing, not an off-topic source.

5. Pass Common questions answered

   Six common questions are listed. Each has a response that addresses it: conservative one-sidedness (sourcing, last word, unresponded claims, errors), balance (airtime and unchecked claims), short stories (one-line facts, Seattle Times threshold example), the poll (both results and which outlets reported them), endorsements (Seattle Times newsroom check), and intent (counts show what readers were told, not why).

Coverage: I read only the article text and the source summaries supplied in the input. I did not open any source, snapshot, dataset or web page, and I did not verify any quote or count. Every source takeaway carries status 'not yet checked', so none is established. The headline counts (2 of 58, 9 of 58, 6 of 58), balance counts (sourcing, first and last word, 18 unchecked each side), claim-check rates (9 of 12, 5 of 7, 17 of 38, 12 of 43) and coder agreement (20 of 20) all rest on unchecked takeaways. The article's keyPoints are marked established, but the underlying takeaways they summarize are not, so those points are unverified here. The Public Disclosure Commission fundraising figures and the DHM poll figures are cited in the text without a listed source entry. I checked internal consistency of the article's own numbers and sections, the objection responses against their questions, and whether each source is on topic. I did not judge whether any source says what the article claims. No check was marked NotChecked because each needed section is present.