Washington's millionaires-tax estimate assumes no response; studies show high earners respond.

1. Pass Title matches the evidence

   The title says the estimate assumes no response, which the fiscal note's assumption bullet supports, and the title's claim that studies show high earners respond matches the Rauh and Shyu erosion figures. The title does not state the 12-of-18 result or any Washington revenue number.

2. Pass No obvious contradictions

   Finding True, the answer, the conclusion's 'True with high confidence' and the confidence field all agree. The 12-of-18, 6-shortfall and 4-recession counts are internally consistent, and the 45.2%/60.9% and 9.5% figures match across sections.

3. Pass Plausible justification

   The conclusion explains that both halves of the claim rest on primary documents and a peer-reviewed study, and that the step from erosion to shortfall is unsupported because the benchmarks differ. That reasoning follows from the evidence and limitations as written.

4. Pass Sources are relevant

   Each source's name, title and description fits the claim it supports: fiscal notes for the assumptions, Rauh and Shyu for erosion, the Multnomah, New Jersey, Tufts and Massachusetts sources for comparisons, and JCT and Montana for federal and state practice. Takeaway accuracy was not checked here.

5. Pass Common questions answered

   There are six objections, each with a short answer and a response that addresses its specific question, such as the 4.71% cut, migration timing and the state-practice comparison.

Coverage: Read the full article payload: title, claim, finding, answer, conclusion, description, context, editorial note, the five evidence items with their limitations, the six objections and responses, key points, sources and takeaway quotes. Checked internal arithmetic: 12 of 18 beats, 6 shortfalls, 4 recession shortfalls (Maryland 0.56 and 0.77, Oregon 0.67, New York 0.90), and the Maryland ratios against their stated dollar figures. Every takeaway in the sources block carries status 'not yet checked', so none is marked established. I did not rely on any takeaway for quote accuracy and judged source relevance from metadata only. Key points marked established were used only to confirm they match the evidence. Not examined: source snapshots, the chart, the dataset, and the external web. Items I could not verify from the text: the $112 million Multnomah forecast in the second objection, the $4.4 billion LAO 2012 estimate (the quoted LAO takeaway gives only the $7.0 billion total), the 'Revenue Department's range' for Massachusetts in the second objection, and the claim that Oregon's first year was retroactive. The description and context say market swings outweighed behavioral responses, but the dataset caption and evidence limitation say a ratio cannot show the size of behavioral effects; this causal claim is left for the Skeptic. Nothing here rose to an obvious problem a quick reader would catch.