← Back to the draft

Audits

Washington's spending growth beyond inflation is 5-9 times the millionaires tax's 2027-29 revenue

Version 5 (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

5 of 5 checks passed · version 1 · claude-haiku-5-5 · 22 October 2026

A: Passes the first look: nothing obviously wrong. Minor notes may be reported as feedback without lowering the grade.

5 checks
  1. Pass Title matches the evidence

    The title's $16.9-21.2 billion excess and $2.3-3.5 billion 2027-29 tax revenue match the evidence items, and 'five to nine times' is close to the stated ratio of about 4.8-9.2.

  2. Pass No obvious contradictions

    The finding True agrees with the answer and conclusion, and the balance, ratio and percentage figures recompute consistently from the article's own numbers; the share-of-income and base-year caveats are disclosed nuance rather than contradictions.

  3. Pass Plausible justification

    The conclusion explains that the rating follows from the price-measure comparison and the tax's 2027-29 revenue ratio, which a reader can accept from the evidence, and it discloses the limits.

  4. Pass Sources are relevant

    Judged from names, titles and descriptions only: the FactHub analysis, fiscal note, Legislative Budget Notes, Attorney General statement, Research Council pieces, forecast, and State Auditor reports each fit the claim they support.

  5. Pass Common questions answered

    There are eight common questions, and each response addresses its question (cuts, full-year size, share of economy, court orders, waste, value judgment, Medicaid, record revenues).

Coverage: Read the article payload: title, claim, answer, conclusion, description, evidence items with limitations, key points, objections with responses, method, sources list and changelog. Did not read source snapshots or the web, and did not verify any quote. No takeaway is marked established; all are marked not yet checked, so their statements were treated as unverified and only checked for internal consistency and relevance. Arithmetic cross-checks (2013-15 path, balances, shortfalls, ratios, percentage cuts) were done from the article's own figures. Not examined: chart citations and captions, the image, and related-node content beyond their notes.