Washington's top-earner income swings sharply, and its new tax has no reserve.

1. Pass Title matches the evidence

   The title says Washington's $1M+ income swings sharply and the new tax has no reserve. The IRS evidence shows falls of 45% (2001) and 34% (2022), and the ESSB 6346 evidence shows no reserve, cap or threshold. The rating True points the same way, and the 'six to seven times' comparison is close enough to the 5.7 to 6.1 ratio implied by the stated standard deviations.

2. Pass No obvious contradictions

   The finding True, the answer and the conclusion agree. The conclusion's figures (44.6%, 34.0%, 9.6%, 12.5%, about $1.9 billion reserves, 30% committed) match the evidence summaries. Section 202's 5% deposit to the Fair Start for Kids account is a fixed diversion, not above-normal receipts, so it does not plainly contradict 'no reserve'. The conclusion's 'no reserve' statement is worded with that nuance in mind.

3. Pass Plausible justification

   The conclusion reasons from the IRS swings, the general-fund comparison and the statute's silence on reserves to 'the evidence supports each part of the claim'. It then gives the three counterpoints (capital gains credit, windfalls, forecasts beaten) and explains why they do not change the rating, which a reasonable reader would accept.

4. Pass Sources are relevant

   Sources are on topic: the session law and constitution for the reserve point, the fiscal note and Research Council for the commitments, ERFC for reserves and forecasts, Pew and Boyd for national volatility, Connecticut, California and Massachusetts fiscal offices for other states, and FactHub datasets for the computed figures. The Research Council is business-supported but its role is disclosed and it is on topic.

5. Pass Common questions answered

   There are five objections, and each has a response that addresses its question: forecasts beaten (answered with windfalls and the one-year drop point), capital gains already moved (answered with the 15% versus 38% illustration and the 2001 wage drop), every tax falls (answered with the sales tax comparison), reserve later (answered with the 1% transfer and the $880 million drawdown), and budget hole (answered as a prediction not settled by evidence).

Coverage: I audited only the article text and the source metadata supplied. I did not read source snapshots, the web, or the underlying datasets. Every takeaway in the sources block is marked 'not yet checked', so none is established. I therefore treated the takeaway statements and quotes as unchecked and relied only on the article's own text and summaries for the factual claims. The article's keyPoints of kind 'established' were not verified against sources. I did not recompute the IRS or fiscal figures. Items I noticed but did not treat as findings: the ratio of 32.9% to 5.7-6.1 is described as 'six to seven times'; the 'roughly $35-50 million a year' 1% transfer figure is an unverified calculation; ERFC's 'raised its first-year estimate by 30%' is not in the cited takeaway; and the Fair Start for Kids account is counted by ERFC among reserve accounts while the article says there is no reserve.