Washington grows about 60 to 67 percent of America's commercial apples.

1. Pass Title matches the evidence

   Title's 60 to 67 percent range matches the unadjusted 2018-2025 shares (60.8-67.5) and the 66.8% for 2025 in evidence item 1; the claim of most apples matches the finding True.

2. Pass No obvious contradictions

   Conclusion, key points and objections give the same adjusted range (57 to 64 percent, about 63 in 2025) and the same 2021-2025 averages, so no incompatible figures.

3. Pass Plausible justification

   Conclusion gives a clear reason for True: NASS shows a majority in all 26 years, with no rival state close, and value, fresh-market and acreage measures agree.

4. Pass Sources are relevant

   NASS Quick Stats, NASS annual summaries, NASS Census of Agriculture and the USDA ERS outlook are all on topic for apple production share.

5. Pass Common questions answered

   Five common questions (seven-state total, backyard trees, year-to-year swings, value, two-thirds claim) each receive a direct response.

Coverage: Read the full article payload; sources judged by name/title/description/role only, per First Look's rules; no source snapshots read. startedAtUtc equals the submission time because the article was fetched earlier and the start time was not recorded then.

1. Concern (minor) Central claims are accurate

   Change the title range to match the article's own full-national estimate (about 57 to 64 percent in 2018-2025), or say the 60-67 percent applies to USDA's seven-state total.

   Main claim: Washington produced more than half of U.S. commercial apples every year 2000-2025, about two-thirds of the published (seven-state) total recently, about 57-64 percent of a full national total. Ratings: (1) 2025 share 66.8 percent, 7,163 of 10,718.5 million lb: True. NASS 2025 summary lists Washington utilized 7,163.0 and United States 10,718.5; 2025 value 1,885,000 of 2,820,348 thousand dollars (66.8 percent) True. (2) Above 50 percent every year since 2000: True for years I could check. 2000-2002 summary: WA 6,000/5,050/5,150 vs US 10,322.2/9,214.4/8,405.0 (58.1, 54.8, 61.3 percent). 2005 summary: 2003 4,550 of 8,703.0 (52.3 percent, matches the stated minimum), 2004 6,150 of 10,361.3 (59.4). 2000-2004 average computes to 57.2 percent, matching. 2007 summary: 2005-2007 at 59.4, 56.8, 57.3 percent. 2023 66.0 percent, 2024 67.5 percent. 2008-2022 Unverifiable here (Quick Stats unreadable). (3) Seven-state U.S. total: True for 2023-2025; the 2025 table lists only CA, MI, NY, OR, PA, VA, WA, which sum to 10,718.5. (4) 2025 ranking: NY 1,493.5 (13.9 percent), MI 1,064 (9.9), PA 503 (4.7): True. (5) Fresh-market 70.7-77.8 percent 2021-2025: 2023-2025 compute to 74.4, 77.6, 77.8 percent, True for those years. (6) 2023 value 63.8 vs volume 66.0 percent: True. (7) Yields 44,100 vs 37,400 lb/acre in 2025: True. (8) Census acreage, ERS range, 2015-2017 add-back: Unverifiable (sources unreadable). The one inaccuracy among central claims is the title, 'Washington grows about 60 to 67 percent of America's commercial apples.' That range is the share of USDA's seven-state total in 2018-2025 (the article gives 60.8-67.5). The article itself says this 'flatters Washington's share by about 3 to 4 points' and that 'Against a full national total, about 57 to 64 percent is a better estimate.' So the title presents as America's share a figure the article's own analysis calls inflated: Mostly True. It does not change the core finding (a majority), so Minor. Confidence: High for verified years; Medium overall given unreadable sources.

   About conclusion, evidence:nass-annual-share, evidence:seven-state-denominator The finding

2. Concern (minor) Claims are supported and labeled

   Stop saying the claim holds on acreage: Washington has 47.2 percent of bearing acres; say acreage is consistent with a production majority, in summary and conclusion.

   Central claims are each tied to cited evidence and sources (NASS summaries for 2000-2006, Quick Stats for 2007-2025, the 2025 summary for latest figures), and the add-back is clearly labeled as a FactHub estimate with its assumption stated ('assumes the other states kept producing at their 2015-2017 average'). Inference and fact are mostly kept apart. One inference is stated too much like a fact: the summary says 'The claim holds on every measure checked (volume, value, fresh-market sales and orchard acreage)', and the conclusion says it 'is supported by value, fresh-market and acreage measures too.' By the article's own evidence item 4, Washington had 47.2 percent of U.S. bearing apple acres in 2022, so on acreage the claim 'most' does not hold; the acreage figure is only consistent with a production majority once yield differences are invoked, which the evidence item correctly says ('Acreage is not production, so this item cannot confirm a production share by itself'). Minor: the reader's belief about production is unchanged. Confidence: High.

   About conclusion, evidence:census-acreage The finding

3. Pass Sourcing is strong and transparent

   The article relies on primary official statistics: NASS annual summaries and Quick Stats (the national statistical agency for crops), the Census of Agriculture, and an ERS outlook. Each evidence item lists its sourceIds and each source has a role label ('Primary data, 2000-2002', etc.), so it is clear which source supports which claim. The NASS summaries I read contain exactly the state tables described. Dependence on one agency is openly disclosed ('nearly all figures come from USDA NASS'), which is appropriate since NASS is the authoritative source and no non-USDA source estimates state apple production. Derived figures rest on a FactHub dataset with no readable URL in this audit, but the inputs are primary and the method is described. Confidence: High.

4. Pass Context is complete

   The article supplies the context a reader needs: the commercial-orchard definition ('100 or more trees'), that figures are estimates, the 2018 switch to a seven-state U.S. total with a sensitivity analysis, year-to-year variation including the 2003 low (52.3 percent, which I verified) and the 2012 Michigan freeze, value vs volume, and backyard/non-commercial trees. Total vs utilized production is addressed (method step 1). No omitted contrary evidence that would change the impression is apparent; the 2000-2007 and 2023-2025 tables I read show no year below half. Confidence: High for covered years; Medium for 2008-2022, which I could not read.

5. Pass Framing is fair and neutral

   The claim is stated as it circulates ('Washington grows most of America's apples.') and rated with a stronger variant addressed separately as an objection ('Washington grows two-thirds or more of U.S. apples'), answered with 'Two-thirds matches the published seven-state U.S. total in some recent years ... about 57 to 64 percent is a better estimate.' Objections are answered with data, some conceded ('Partly correct'). Language is measured. No partisan framing. The title's figure is handled under claims-accurate. Confidence: High.

6. Pass Uncertainty is stated

   The article states the main uncertainties: estimates rather than counts, the unknown recent output of unsurveyed states ('their true recent output is unknown because NASS no longer estimates it'), that the add-back 'may be somewhat low', nominal values, the ERS range's unspecified basis, and that confidence is 'High that Washington produces a majority; moderate on the exact recent share.' This separation of high confidence on the majority from moderate confidence on the exact share is appropriate given the evidence. Confidence: High.

Coverage: Read in full the apple tables of four archived NASS Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts summaries (2002, 2005, 2007-revised, 2025 editions; each snapshot truncated at 200,000 characters but the apple tables were within the text). Could not read: nass-quickstats-survey (Quick Stats CSV served as application/ms-excel, unreadable), nass-quickstats-census (over 5,120 KB), ers-fts-386 (PDF, unreadable), facthub-dataset (no URL or archive). Therefore figures for 2008-2022 (including the 2012 peak, Michigan 2012 crop, 2009 ratio, and 2018-2022 seven-state shares), the 2015-2017 other-states add-back, Census of Agriculture acreage figures, and ERS's 71-80 percent fresh-market range were not verified against sources. Verified: 2000-2007 and 2023-2025 state and U.S. utilized production, 2023-2025 value and fresh-market shares, 2025 yields, and the seven-state composition of the 2023-2025 U.S. total.

1. Concern (minor) Confidence matches the evidence

   Use the article's adjusted 57 to 64 percent range in the title, and drop acreage from 'holds on every measure' in the summary, since Washington has 47.2 percent of acres.

   High confidence that Washington produces a majority is warranted: the margin is wide (adjusted minimum about 57 percent recently, 52.3 percent at the 2003 low), the series spans 26 years, and limitations are stated. Despite resting mainly on NASS, NASS is the official estimate and the article states that dependence; I would also give High on the majority and Moderate on the exact share, as the conclusion does. Two places state things a step more strongly than the evidence: (1) The title, 'Washington grows about 60 to 67 percent of America's commercial apples', uses the unadjusted seven-state range (evidence 3: 60.8-67.5 percent), while the article's own better estimate for a full national total is 'about 57 to 64 percent' (objection 5) and it says the published total 'flatters Washington's share by about 3 to 4 points'. (2) The summary says 'The claim holds on every measure checked (volume, value, fresh-market sales and orchard acreage)', but evidence 4 gives 47.2 percent of bearing acres, below half; its limitation says acreage 'cannot confirm a production share by itself'. Neither changes the finding a reader takes away (a clear majority), so Minor.

   About conclusion, evidence:seven-state-denominator, evidence:census-acreage The finding

2. Concern (minor) Evidence is independent

   In evidence 5, replace 'ERS ... independently states' with 'ERS, drawing on NASS data, states', matching its own limitation that ERS is not independent measurement.

   Evidence 1, 2 and 3 all rest on the same NASS survey series (evidence 2's limitation says so: 'not independent of it'), and the value and fresh-market shares in evidence 5 come from the same NASS series. The ERS figure derives from NASS data, as evidence 5's limitation states ('a separate analysis rather than independent measurement'). Yet the same item's summary says ERS's outlook 'independently states' the fresh-market range, and method step 5 calls it 'a separate institution's analysis' used as a check. Independent support does remain: the Census of Agriculture (evidence 4) is a different method covering all farms, though also run by NASS and measuring acreage rather than production. The article is otherwise transparent about NASS dependence in the editorial note. Because the overlap is partly disclosed and some independent support remains, this is Minor, not Material. Confidence: High.

   About evidence:value-and-fresh, evidence:nass-annual-share, evidence:state-ranking, method:5 The finding

3. Pass Rates the real claim

   The claim 'Washington grows most of America's apples.' circulates as a statement that Washington is the dominant apple state; a reader repeating it means at least that Washington grows more than any other state and usually more than half. The article reads it as the stronger majority version ('more than half of U.S. apples by weight') and also shows the weaker plurality version (ranked first every year, 3.8 to 9.1 times the second state), so either reading is covered. A stronger circulating version ('two-thirds or more') is addressed as an objection. Scope: the conclusion stays within U.S. commercial production 2000-2025, with the 2026 forecast clearly labeled as a forecast; the editorial note excludes consumption and exports. I would rate the same claim. Confidence: High.

4. Pass Rating follows from the evidence

   Before reading the verdict I would give True: evidence 1 shows Washington above 50 percent in all 26 years (minimum 52.3 percent in 2003), evidence 3 shows the share stays at 57.1-63.7 percent after adjusting for the seven-state total, and evidence 2, 4 and 5 are consistent. No evidence points toward a lower label; the closest call (2003) is still above half. The article's finding is True with answer 'Washington has produced more than half of the U.S. commercial apple crop every year since 2000', which matches the evidence and the finding. A careful reviewer would choose the same label. Confidence: High.

5. Pass Strongest objections answered

   The strongest objections I can identify are (a) the post-2018 seven-state denominator inflates the share, (b) non-commercial and small orchards are excluded, (c) the share fluctuates, and (d) a different measure (value, total vs utilized production) could change the answer. All are addressed with evidence: (a) objection 1 and evidence 3, with a quantified add-back and the concession 'Partly correct'; (b) objection 2 using Census of Agriculture acreage on all farms; (c) objection 3 citing the 2003 low of 52.3 percent; (d) objection 4 with value shares, and method step 1 says total production was checked. The plurality-vs-majority reading is covered by evidence 2. Responses are evidence-based, not dismissive. Confidence: High.

Coverage: Examined the full article payload: claim, finding, answer, confidence, title, summary, keyPoints, context, conclusion, all five evidence items with methods, institutions, years and limitations, five objections and responses, six method steps, editorial note, and source list. Per the Skeptic's instructions, no source snapshots were read; evidence was taken as stated.

1. Concern (minor) Title states the finding

   Make seoTitle state the finding, e.g. 'Washington grows most of America's apples: over half every year since 2000'.

   Title: 'Washington grows about 60 to 67 percent of America's commercial apples.' It leads with what is true, in positive form, names the subject, and resolves the claim for a title-only reader (60-67 percent is a majority). No myth repetition or clickbait. Pass for the title. Rule: 'seoTitle may use the wording people search with as long as it states the finding.' The seoTitle, 'Does Washington grow most of America's apples?', is a question that does not state the finding. Per the rule, a seoTitle that does not state the finding is Minor.

   About conclusion The finding

2. Concern (minor) Each section does its job

   Delete the hand-written 'Independence note' from editorialNote (the page generates it), drop 'Agriculture | Fact check.' from context, and make the summary one sentence.

   Conclusion synthesizes well: it weighs the seven-state denominator, the acreage-yield relationship, and states what remains unproven ('the exact recent national total'), connecting to the split confidence. keyPoints list what the evidence establishes. editorialNote states scope ('does not address consumption, exports, or comparisons with other countries'), caveats and review status. Lapses against the rules: (1) Rule: 'The independence note is generated by the page; the author must not write one.' editorialNote contains 'Independence note: one country, two USDA agencies plus FactHub's own calculations, three methods ... and data spanning 2000-2026.' (2) Rule: context is 'one concise paragraph of essential framing'; it opens with 'Agriculture | Fact check.', a category label that belongs in metadata (topic), not context. (3) Rule: 'summary is one sentence'; the summary has two sentences. Each is a field carrying content that belongs elsewhere or exceeding its form: Minor.

   About conclusion The finding

3. Concern (minor) Consistent house style

   Use one rounding for the 2018-2025 share (title says 60 to 67, conclusion 61 to 68 percent), one range style, and explain ERS, alternate bearing and coefficient of variation.

   Rule: 'the same rounding for the same figure everywhere.' The unadjusted 2018-2025 share (evidence 3: '60.8-67.5 percent') appears as 'about 60 to 67 percent' in the title and 'rather than 61 to 68 percent' in the conclusion. These are rounding differences, not different values, so Minor rather than Material. Rule: consistent number formats: ranges alternate between hyphen form ('57.1-63.7 percent', '60.8-67.5 percent') and 'to' form ('57 to 64 percent', '56.8 to 74.9 percent'); the 2025 crop is given as '7.16 billion of the 10.72 billion pounds' in the summary and '7,163 of 10,718.5 million pounds' elsewhere. Rule: 'an abbreviation is spelled out at first use' and technical terms explained: context names 'a USDA Economic Research Service analysis' without introducing 'ERS', which is then used unexplained; 'alternate bearing' (objection 3) and 'coefficient of variation' (limitation 4) are not explained for a general reader. No typos or leftover drafting text found. All Minor.

   About conclusion, evidence:seven-state-denominator, evidence:value-and-fresh, limitation:census-acreage The finding

4. Pass Verdict fields agree and stand alone

   Read as: FactHub rates the claim "Washington grows most of America's apples." True (High confidence): Washington has produced more than half of the U.S. commercial apple crop every year since 2000. The claim is one declarative sentence worded as it circulates, not its correction. The answer stands alone and says what is true. Title (60-67 percent), summary ('more than half in each of the 26 years since 2000'), keyPoints and conclusion ('High that Washington produces a majority') all express the same True conclusion in current terms; no stale wording from the earlier free-text finding (changelog notes the rating was standardized) was found.

5. Pass Limitations are specific

   Each limitation is item-specific and says what the item does not prove: item 1 notes survey estimates for 'commercial orchards of 100 or more bearing trees' and the 2000-2006 sourcing; item 2 'are not independent of it' and the seven-state ranking; item 3 the add-back assumption and that it 'may be somewhat low'; item 4 'Acreage is not production, so this item cannot confirm a production share by itself' plus coefficients of variation; item 5 nominal values and that ERS 'does not state which years or measure produce its 80 percent upper bound'. None is boilerplate.

6. Pass Tone is measured and respectful

   Language is measured: 'Confidence: High that Washington produces a majority; moderate on the exact recent share'; 'that uncertainty affects the size of Washington's majority, not whether it has one.' Objections are answered respectfully, some conceded ('Partly correct.'). 'No other state comes close' and 'dominates fresh-market apples' are justified by the stated ratios (3.8 to 9.1 times) and shares (70.7 to 77.8 percent). No ridicule, sarcasm or unwarranted absolutes.

7. Pass Readers can verify it

   All sources have role labels ('Primary data, 2000-2002', 'Census of all farms (alternative method)', 'Separate agency analysis'), full titles with dates, stable identifiers (Quick Stats query descriptions, table names, 'FTS-386, page 3'), archive URLs for the text and PDF releases, and descriptions of why each was chosen. Key claims have primary anchors (NASS annual summaries, Quick Stats exports with digests in a manifest, the FactHub dataset node). Method steps cover the claim definition (step 1), sources reviewed (steps 2-3), evidence not resting on one source (step 5) and recorded limits (step 6). The editorial note also gives reader verification steps.

Coverage: Examined only the article payload: title, seoTitle, description, claim, finding, answer, confidence, summary, keyPoints, context, conclusion, five evidence items and limitations, five objections, six method steps, editorialNote, eight sources (role, title, identifier, description), chart caption and image caption/alt text. No web or source snapshots used. Metadata (dates, identifiers, URLs, changelog) excluded from house-style review.