Audits
Washington's millionaires-tax estimate assumes no response; studies show high earners respond.
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
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 the estimate assumes no response and that studies show high earners respond; the fiscal note's 'do not reduce taxable income' line and the Rauh and Shyu erosion figures support both halves.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
Finding True matches the answer and conclusion, and the 12-of-18, 4-recession-shortfall, and $12.9B figures agree across sections.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion explains that both halves of the claim rest on primary documents and a peer-reviewed study, and that the erosion-to-shortfall step is unsupported, which follows from the evidence.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Each source's name, title and description fits the claim it supports: fiscal notes, the Rauh and Shyu study, Multnomah and New Jersey migration studies, JCT and Montana practice documents, and official collection reports.
-
Pass Common questions answered
Six objections are present, and each response directly answers its own question.
Coverage: I read the full article text, the keyPoints, evidence items, objections, conclusion, method, the datasets and the source takeaway blocks. I did not read source snapshots or the web. Every takeaway in the sources block is marked 'not yet checked', and no takeaway is marked established; the figures that depend on them (for example the 45.2/60.9 erosion, the Multnomah 8.5%, the $1.3B Tufts figure, and all 18 ratio comparisons) are unchecked here and left to the Source Checker. The only key points marked established are the fiscal-note and I-645 items and the Rauh and Shyu erosion item. One arithmetic point is flagged for the Source Checker and not raised as a finding: the conclusion and dataset give 0.84 for Washington capital gains in 2023-24 against the $527M gross estimate, but the cited 2023 ($394.7M) and 2024 ($583.8M) figures average to about 0.93, so the 0.84 may come from a different basis that the article does not state. I did not verify the $112M Multnomah forecast or the Maryland, LAO and Massachusetts forecast values, which are not stated in the article text beyond the source takeaways.