Audits
Public pensions lose their exemption from Washington's millionaires tax above $1 million.
Version 5. 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 public pensions lose the exemption above $1 million, which matches the what-changed and only-above evidence items and the True finding.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
The finding True agrees with the answer and conclusion. The 2,800 to 3,700 range in the conclusion and key points matches the scale evidence, and the $14,850 example matches across sections.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion ties the True rating to the statutory text, the bill report, the fiscal note and the IRS counts, and explains why the 'only millionaires' framing needs a caveat.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Session law, bill reports, fiscal note, amendment, KXLY, the campaign site, 4 U.S.C. 111, Davis, IRS-based FactHub records and the LEOFF 2034 sources all match the claims they support.
-
Pass Common questions answered
Five common questions are present, and each response addresses its question: every-level, promise, Social Security, Riccelli's $80,000 claim and the pension raid.
Coverage: I read only the article text, the element list and the source block. I did not read source snapshots or the web and did not verify any quote. Every takeaway in the source block is marked 'not yet checked', so I treated all takeaway-backed statements as unchecked and relied on the article's own text. The key points are labeled established, but their backing takeaways are unchecked, so that is a gap for the Source Checker. The objection responses and the dataset-based figures (FactHub records) are judged only for internal consistency. Nothing in the article text plainly contradicts the rating, and no obvious problems were found in the five checks.