Audits
Washington's $1 million income-tax threshold can be lowered by a simple majority.
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 'can be lowered by a simple majority' matches the finding True and the statute, amendment and constitution evidence on legal capacity; the governor's signature or veto override is spelled out in key point 1 and the conclusion.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
Finding True, answer, conclusion and key points agree; the $250,000 and $821,000 figures match across the statements, erosion evidence, key point 4 and the inflator objection.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion gives the reason for True: the deduction and the I-2111 exemption are ordinary statutes changeable by majority, and a necessity clause can keep a change off the ballot, with intent evidence and limits stated separately.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Statutes, the constitution, the court-order news report, the House and Senate amendments, news reports of the debate and pledge, the voters' pamphlet and the FactHub projection are each on topic for the point they support.
-
Pass Common questions answered
Six common questions are present, and each response addresses its question (for example, the Yes 'to everyone' claim, the Ferguson veto claim and the Dhingra inflator claim).
Coverage: Read the article text: title, claim, finding, answer, conclusion, key points, evidence items, objections with responses, method, and the sources list with takeaway statements and quotes. Did not read source snapshots, the web, or the FactHub dataset. Every takeaway in the input is marked 'not yet checked', so the quotes and the fairness of each takeaway are unverified and were not relied on for any result. The 'established' and 'context' labels on key points are the article's own and were not independently verified. Judged internal consistency, fit of sources to claims and whether responses answer their questions only. Nothing material was found on the quick first look.