Does most King County supportive housing lack a sobriety or treatment rule?

1. Pass Title matches the evidence

   The title asks whether most King County supportive housing lacks a sobriety or treatment rule, and the finding is True. The evidence fits: the HUD count lists only one sober-labeled project (15 of 8,034 beds, about 0.2%, ev-count), and the county, regional, state and federal rules in ev-county and ev-state-fed say sobriety and treatment are not conditions. Operators' statements (ev-operators) only support this. The rating does not overstate the scope, and the count's limitation about unlabeled sober projects is disclosed.

2. Pass No obvious contradictions

   The finding (True), answer, conclusion and summary all say most funded supportive housing does not require sobriety or treatment, while building rules ban illegal drug use. The conclusion calls the drug-use question unknown on eviction frequency, and key point 5 (contradicts) matches it. Key point 2 attributes the county's no-sobriety statement to the county. The conclusion's note that operator statements largely follow from funder terms matches the method and the changelog. No section states incompatible facts or numbers.

3. Pass Plausible justification

   The conclusion gives a clear reason for True: the federal count and the funders' written rules, which do not depend on each other, point the same way. It separates the sobriety-rule question from the practical drug-use question, which it calls managed rather than allowed, and it names what remains unknown. A reasonable reader would accept that the rating follows from the cited evidence.

4. Pass Sources are relevant

   Each source's name, title and description fits what it supports: HUD count datasets for bed counts, county and regional funder documents for rules, HUD and state grant notices, the executive order, operator pages and codes for operator and building rules, Washington landlord-tenant statutes, a UW research survey, the city auditor's overdose audit, and the bill and its legislative record. Nothing is clearly off-topic. I did not judge whether sources say what the article claims.

5. Pass Common questions answered

   There are eight common questions. Each response addresses its question: drug use allowed in practice (obj-keep-using), whether Housing First permits drug use (obj-hf-allows), federal abandonment of Housing First (obj-trump), sober housing options (obj-sober-options), retention (obj-retention), landlord eviction law (obj-eviction-law), the 2026 bill (obj-bill) and how common drug use is (obj-common).

6. Pass Headline and verdict agree

   Title: 'Does most King County supportive housing lack a sobriety or treatment rule?' With finding True, the short answer is 'Yes'. The sentence a reader takes away is: 'Does most King County supportive housing lack a sobriety or treatment rule? Yes.' That means most such housing has no sobriety or treatment rule, which matches the claim ('doesn't require residents to be sober or in treatment'), the True finding and the answer. The title's 'lack' parallels the claim's negation, so a Yes to the title means the claim is true.

Coverage: I audited the article text, its changelog, claim, finding, answer, summary, key points, conclusion, method, evidence items with limitations, eight objections with responses, and the sources and takeaways as listed in the input. I did not read source snapshots or the web, as instructed. Every takeaway in the sources block is marked 'not yet checked', so I did not treat any source quote as verified. I relied on the article's own text and internal consistency for the checks. The key points are marked established, and I read them against the conclusion for check 2. The changelog says operators' statements are no longer a separate line of evidence, yet ev-operators is still listed; the conclusion and method treat it as support only, so I did not count this as a contradiction. The retention response cites a separate FactHub article about overdose deaths; I did not check that link. The DCHS takeaway source is named King County DCHS but its URL is a dchsblog.com address; I did not judge this, since it is not a claim about source relevance. Nothing in the article was flagged under any check.