Audits
Public pensions lose their exemption from Washington's millionaires tax above $1 million.
Version 2 (draft). 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 5 | 5/5 |
| 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
The title says pensions lose the exemption above $1 million, which matches the what-changed and only-above evidence items and the True rating.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
Finding True, answer, conclusion and key points agree; the $14,850 example, the 2,800 to 3,700 range and the 1.5% share are consistent across sections, and the description's about 3,000 is a rough summary of that range.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion ties the True rating to the statute text, the $1 million base and deduction, and the IRS figures, and labels the legal reason for the change as analysis.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Statute, bill report, fiscal note, House amendment, KXLY fact check, campaign site, 4 U.S.C. 111, Davis v. Michigan and FactHub datasets are each on topic for the claims they support.
-
Pass Common questions answered
Four common questions each get a response that addresses the claim, including the $1 million limit, the promise wording, Social Security and the $80,000 a month remark.
Coverage: Read the article text, claim, finding, answer, conclusion, key points, evidence items, common questions, source metadata and takeaway statements and quotes. Did not open source snapshots or the web. Every source takeaway is marked not yet checked, so the source-level quotes and fairness of the takeaways were not verified here; the article's own key points were read as written. Dataset figures were taken as stated in the article and not verified.