Audits
Washington voters rejected income-tax measures ten times between 1934 and 2010.
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 | 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 between 1934 and 2010, and the list in the conclusion and evidence:sos-list shows exactly ten defeats in that span. The title does not invoke the 90-year window, so the strict nine-defeat count does not make it an overstatement.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
The finding (Mostly true) matches the conclusion's rating. The ten defeats are listed consistently (6 amendments, 3 initiatives, 1 in 2010), and the nine-within-90-years count matches across key-point:4, context and objection:obj-window. Percentages match the certified vote totals (64.15% and 64.11%).
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion gives three specific reasons (the 1934 date falls outside a strict 90-year window, the list includes non-personal taxes, and the 1932 approval and 2024 vote are omitted) that plausibly support the Mostly true rating over True.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Each source matches its use: the Secretary of State pamphlet and history list for the statement and count, certified results for the 2010 and 2024 votes, the Attorney General's ballot statement for 2024, HistoryLink for the 1932 and 1933 events, and KUOW for independent reporting. None is off-topic.
-
Pass Common questions answered
Five objections are present, and each response addresses its question: the 1934 date, the 1932 approval, the corporate and gross-income measures, the 2024 capital gains vote, and the prediction question.
Coverage: Examined the full article payload: title, claim, finding, answer, conclusion, key points, context, evidence, objections, method, editorial note and source list. Checked internal consistency of the counts, dates and percentages, including arithmetic on the certified vote totals. Did not read source snapshots or the web, and did not verify any quote against its source. Every source takeaway is marked 'not yet checked' in the input, so I did not rely on any of them for factual accuracy and only judged source topical relevance. The article's key points are marked established, but I relied on them only for internal consistency. Not examined: image licensing, disclosures, dataset citation records, the expert-review status and the SEO/social titles, which are outside the five checks.