Audits
Initiative 638 requires a doctor's sex verification, not a genital exam.
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 |
|---|---|
| Version 4 | 5/5 |
| Version 3 | 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 says the initiative requires a doctor's sex verification, not a genital exam; evidence item 1 quotes Section 3(2) with three alternative bases, which matches.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
False rating agrees with the conclusion that the text contradicts the claim, and the AG summary and filed text state the same alternatives.
-
Pass Plausible justification
Conclusion ties the False rating to the text: any single basis suffices, so no genital exam is required, and the state's ballot summary agrees.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Secretary of State filed text, AG ballot summary, AAFP guidance, WIAA form, KUOW reporting and two advocacy pieces are all on topic for what each supports.
-
Pass Common questions answered
Four objections (only realistic route, sports physicals already document sex, coaches inspecting, only girls verified) each receive a responsive answer.
Coverage: Read the full article payload; sources judged by name/title/description/role only, per First Look's rules; no source snapshots read. startedAtUtc equals the submission time because the article was fetched earlier and the start time was not recorded then.