Audits
Washington's top-earner income swings sharply, and its new tax has no reserve.
Version 4. 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 and finding say the income base swings sharply and the new tax has no reserve, which matches the IRS swing evidence (-45% in 2001, -34% in 2022) and the no-reserve statutory evidence.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
The finding True agrees with the answer and conclusion, and the six-times and seven-times ratios match the key points. The constitution's 1% transfer is qualified as a limitation rather than contradicted.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion explains that the swing data and the no-reserve statute support each part of the claim, and it states the counterpoints (capital gains design, windfalls, static forecasts) before the defensible concern.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Statute, constitution, fiscal note, ERFC forecasts, Pew, Boyd, Connecticut, California and Massachusetts fiscal offices, and FactHub datasets are all plausibly on topic for the points they support.
-
Pass Common questions answered
Five objections are present, and each response addresses its question directly (forecasts, capital gains design, every tax falls, reserve later, budget hole).
Coverage: Read the article text, evidence summaries, objections, key points, sources and takeaway metadata only; did not read source snapshots or the web and did not verify numbers or quotes. Every source takeaway carries status 'not yet checked', so none was treated as established. Checks rest on article-internal consistency and the stated evidence summaries, not on source accuracy.