Audits
Washington's millionaires tax can reach households where no one earns $1 million.
Version 6. 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 households with no $1 million earner can be reached, and the couples, one-time income, stacking and threshold evidence items support that. The finding True matches the title.
-
Pass No obvious contradictions
Spot-checked arithmetic: $550k each gives $9,900; $1.15M one-time example gives $14,850; $4.2M heir gives $316,800; stacking new tax of $17,060 reproduces; threshold values of $952k, $821k and $725k reproduce under odd-year indexing. Finding, answer and conclusion agree.
-
Pass Plausible justification
The conclusion lists four routes, ties each to statute text, votes or worked examples, and explains why the True rating with high confidence follows.
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Each source is a bill report, session law, voters' pamphlet, RCW section, amendment, commentary or FactHub analysis on the topic it is cited for.
-
Pass Common questions answered
Five common questions are present and each response addresses its own question, including the half-percent sentence, the no and yes campaign statements, the drafting claim and the home-sales claim.
Coverage: I audited the article text, its arithmetic and its internal consistency only. I did not read source snapshots, the web or the FactHub datasets. Every takeaway in the sources block is marked 'not yet checked', so I did not rely on any quote or takeaway as verified; the keyPoints are labelled 'established', but that label does not carry over to the underlying takeaways. I spot-checked the worked examples, the stacking example and the threshold projection values by arithmetic. I did not verify vote counts, IRS share figures, the payer estimates or the quoted statutory and bill language. Source relevance was judged from names, titles and descriptions only.