Audits
If I-645 passes, the tax relief for working families stays in place.
Version 3 (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 | Overall Review | Skeptic | Source Checker | Standards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Version 4 | 5/5 | — | — | — | — |
| Version 3 | 4/5 | — | — | — | — |
| Version 1 | 5/5 | 3/6 | 2/5 | 1/6 | 2/7 |
First Look
A: Passes the first look: nothing obviously wrong. Minor notes may be reported as feedback without lowering the grade.
- No obvious contradictions
- Title matches the evidence
- Plausible justification
- Sources are relevant
- Common questions answered
5 checks · 1 concern
-
Concern (minor) No obvious contradictions
Credit payments are $226M in the cost evidence but $236M in the $963M total, with no year or source for $236M.
The evidence says 'The fiscal note expects $226 million in credit payments in fiscal 2029', but the cost total reads 'Adding $236 million in credit payments gives about $963 million a year (our total).' The $236 million figure has no year and no matching takeaway, so the two credit-payment figures are not reconciled. The $226 million figure is also the only credit-payment number the cited fiscal-note takeaway supports. Fix: state the year for the $236 million figure and its source, or replace it with the fiscal note's $226 million for the same year.
About evidence:cost-continues The finding
-
Pass Title matches the evidence
The title says the tax relief for working families stays in place, and the evidence items (repeal list, Attorney General statement, House staff summary) all show the relief survives repeal. The title's 'working families' scope fits the relief described.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion explains that the repeal clause omits every relief section, two official readings agree, and the 460,000 figure is a credit expansion that repeal does not remove, so False follows.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Each source's name, title and description fits its cited claim: the initiative text and voters' pamphlet for the repeal and the No argument, the session law and fiscal note for the relief and costs, the Attorney General and House staff for effects, and the governor's release and the Budget and Policy Center for the 460,000 figure.
-
Pass Common questions answered
There are ten common questions, and each response addresses its question, including the title-versus-section objection, the diaper objection and the rating of the No opening sentence.
Coverage: Read the full article payload: title, claim, answer, finding, confidence, conclusion, evidence items, objections with responses, sources, and their takeaways. Did not open source documents, snapshots or the web, per instructions. Every takeaway in the sources block is marked 'not yet checked', not established, so I did not rely on any takeaway and judged only the article text. Not verified: the $236 million figure has no takeaway; the attribution to the Attorney General that the general fund pays for K-12 schools in the diapers rebuttal has no supporting takeaway; the 9.9% rate and the 2028 start in the context section have no takeaway; the 66-section repeal list, the 2029 payment timing and the $963 million total depend on takeaways that are not yet checked. The article's own 'established' key points were not treated as checked, because the source-level status says otherwise.