Audits
Washington's fastest girl miler ever would finish near last in boys' finals.
Version 2. 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 2 | 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
Title 'would finish near last in boys' finals' matches evidence:boys-finals, which places 4:33.29 between 15th and 24th, among the last five in all 15 finals and last in four; the 'near last' wording is not overstated.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
Finding 'True' agrees with the answer and conclusion; the 257 of 276 count, the 19 boys who were faster-than-benchmark exceptions finishing 15th or lower, and the 15th-24th placement range are consistent across key points, evidence and conclusion.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion explains the True rating by the 15-final placement pattern and the U.S. benchmark, and addresses the favorable-to-girls framing and limits, a reason a reader would accept from the evidence.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Sources are named and titled as WIAA official results for 2014 and 2022-2026, contemporary news reports of the 2014 and 2025 records, Athletic.net season lists, Wikipedia's compiled U.S. record list, and the FactHub dataset; all are plausibly on topic for the claims they support.
-
Pass Common questions answered
Six objections are present and each response plausibly addresses its question (one race, small schools, participation, single runner, mile vs 1600m, transgender framing).
Coverage: Read the full article payload (answer, conclusion, key points, evidence, objections, sources by name/title/description/role and elements list). Per First Look's rules, sources were judged by name, title, description and role only; no source snapshots, archives, datasets or the web were read. The auditor's own prompt was read via get_node_for_audit.