Audits
If I-645 passes, the tax relief for working families stays in place.
Version 4. 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.
- Title matches the evidence
- No obvious contradictions
- Plausible justification
- Sources are relevant
- Common questions answered
5 checks
-
Pass Title matches the evidence
The title 'If I-645 passes, the tax relief for working families stays in place' and the False finding match the evidence: the repeal list omits every relief section, and the AG statement and House staff summary both say the relief remains.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
The finding (False), answer, conclusion and summary all point the same way. The $963 million total matches its components ($726.6 million plus $236 million). The Misleading rating on the opening-sentence objection is a separate rating of a quoted sentence, and its response explains it.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion explains that the operative repeal clause omits the relief sections, that the AG and House staff agree, and that a future budget cut would need a separate law, which supports rating the claim False.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Each source's name, title and description fits what it is cited for: the initiative text and session law for sections, the AG and House staff for effect, the governor and BPC for the 460,000 figure and start date, and the fiscal note and WRC for costs. Party-to-dispute and advocacy sources are disclosed in their reliability notes.
-
Pass Common questions answered
There are ten common questions, each with a response that addresses its own claim, including the small-business, title, diaper, contingency, appropriations and campaign-quote objections.
Coverage: I audited the article text only: title, claim, finding, answer, conclusion, key points, evidence items, the ten common questions and their responses, changelog, disclosure, and the source list with takeaways. I did not read any source, snapshot or web page, as instructed. Every takeaway in the sources block carries status 'not yet checked', so I treated none of them as established and judged only whether the article's text is internally consistent and whether the cited source names and descriptions are on topic. The article's key points are marked established, but the takeaway-level status markers do not confirm that; this is a limit on coverage rather than a finding. The scanned initiative PDF and the session law text were not examined, so I could not check section numbers against the source text. The arithmetic for the $963 million total was verified from the figures as written in the article.