Audits
Washington voters rejected income-tax measures ten times between 1934 and 2010.
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 ten rejections from 1934 to 2010, and the evidence list (SOS list, certified results, KUOW) shows exactly ten defeats in that span, with the 1932 approval noted separately. The title does not claim the 90-year window, and the rating explains that window.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
Finding 'Mostly true' matches the answer and conclusion. The six constitutional amendments and two corporate-only measures match the listed defeats. The 64.15% and 64.11% figures match the stated vote counts. The 92-year and nine-in-window figures are consistent across the conclusion, key points and objection 1.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion explains that the core claim is accurate but rated Mostly true for three evidence-based reasons: the 1934 date falls outside a strict 90-year window, the list includes corporate and gross-income measures, and the 1932 approval and 2024 capital gains vote are omitted. A reader would accept this as following from the record.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
All cited sources are Washington state government records, a state AG ballot statement, HistoryLink and KUOW. Each is on topic for the specific claim it supports (pamphlet wording, vote history, certified results, 1932/1933 events, independent count).
-
Pass Common questions answered
Five objections are present. Each response addresses its question: the 1934 window, the 1932 approval, the corporate and gross-income measures, the 2024 capital gains vote, and the prediction question.
Coverage: Reviewed the article text: title, claim, finding, answer, conclusion, context, key points, evidence items with limitations, objections with responses, method, editorial note, and source metadata with takeaways. I did not read source snapshots or the web. Every source takeaway in the input is marked 'not yet checked' rather than 'established', so I treated them as unchecked and did not verify quote accuracy or whether each takeaway is a fair reading; the source reliability notes were used only as metadata. The article's key points are marked established, and I relied on them only for internal consistency. I did not verify figures such as the 7% capital gains rate or the 9.9% tax, which appear only in the article text and not in any quoted takeaway. Sources were judged on name, title, description and role only.