FactHub

FactHub auditor · What an audit means

First Look

A fast first-pass check that catches only obvious problems: a title the evidence doesn't back, a headline that reads backwards with its verdict, plain contradictions, an unsupported rating, irrelevant sources, or missing common questions.

Audits articles 6 checks Version 6 1 run per audit Doesn't read sources anthropic/claude-haiku-5-5

Send feedback on this auditor

What it checks

  1. Title matches the evidence title-matches-evidence

    Does the title (and the claim, finding and answer) say roughly what the evidence items show, with no obvious overstatement, wrong direction, or numbers the evidence doesn't contain?

    10 findings · 5 applied

  2. No obvious contradictions no-obvious-contradictions

    Is the article free of plain contradictions, such as the finding disagreeing with the answer or conclusion, two sections stating incompatible facts or numbers, or one section stating as settled what another says is unsettled?

    17 findings · 5 applied

  3. Plausible justification plausible-justification

    Does the conclusion give a sensible, readable reason for the rating that a reasonable reader would accept from the evidence presented?

    2 findings · 1 applied

  4. Sources are relevant sources-relevant

    Is each cited source, judged by its name, title, description and role, plausibly about the topic and the claim it supports, rather than off-topic or obviously unsuitable?

    No findings yet

  5. Common questions answered common-questions

    Does the article have common questions (objections), and does each have a plausible response that actually addresses it?

    5 findings · 1 applied

  6. Headline and verdict agree title-verdict-agree

    Read the title question with the verdict's short answer as one sentence (for example "Does X happen? Mostly yes."). Does that sentence tell a reader the same thing as the claim, finding and answer, so that a Yes to the title means the claim is true?

    3 findings · 3 applied

Each check comes back as Pass, Concern (minor or material), Fail, Not applicable, or Not checked.

How it grades

The first rule that matches the check results gives the grade.

  1. Any check is Fail Something is plainly broken: the rating or title contradicts the article's own evidence, the headline read with its verdict says the opposite of the finding, the sources are off-topic, or there are no common questions.
  2. 3 or more checks are Concern (material) Three or more obvious problems; the article is unreliable as written.
  3. 2 or more checks are Concern (material) Two obvious problems, or one with several minor slips; the article needs a closer look.
  4. Any check is Concern (material), and 2 or more checks are Concern (minor) Two obvious problems, or one with several minor slips; the article needs a closer look.
  5. Any check is Concern (material) One obvious problem a reader would notice, such as a title the evidence doesn't back or a missing common question.
  6. Otherwise Passes the first look: nothing obviously wrong. Minor notes may be reported as feedback without lowering the grade.

From its instructions

A quick first pass that looks only for obvious problems a careful reader would spot at a glance: a title or rating the evidence doesn't back, a headline that reads backwards when read with its verdict ("Do they publish deaths? Mostly yes." when the finding is that they mostly don't), plain contradictions between sections, a conclusion that gives no sensible reason for its rating, off-topic sources, and missing or dodged common questions. It defaults to Pass on everything except the headline-and-verdict reading, which it does for every article, and leaves subtle reasoning, source accuracy and house style to the Skeptic, Source Checker and Standards auditors.

Recent audits

  1. A draft Version 3 · 0 material, 0 minor, 6 of 6 passed · by auditor version 6
  2. A draft Version 3 · 0 material, 0 minor, 6 of 6 passed · by auditor version 6
  3. A draft Version 2 · 0 material, 0 minor, 6 of 6 passed · by auditor version 6
  4. A draft Version 2 · 0 material, 0 minor, 6 of 6 passed · by auditor version 6
  5. A draft Version 1 · 0 material, 0 minor, 6 of 6 passed · by auditor version 6

All audits →

Latest findings

  1. A finding on a draft: its text shows to the draft's owners

    Applied in version 7 Material check no-obvious-contradictions about article:seattle-911-trash-open-fire-calls-record:6 (a draft when audited) 10 November 2026 by version 6

  2. A finding on a draft: its text shows to the draft's owners

    Applied in version 7 Minor check title-matches-evidence about article:seattle-911-trash-open-fire-calls-record:5 (a draft when audited) 10 November 2026 by version 6

  3. Key point 2 and summary say calls never fell after 2022, but 2023 (3,480) is below 2022 (3,605). Fix: say they stayed near that level.

    Applied in version 7 Minor check no-obvious-contradictions about article:seattle-911-trash-open-fire-calls-record:1 (a draft when audited) 10 November 2026 by version 6

    Key point 2 and the summary now say calls have stayed near the 2022 level.

  4. A finding on a draft: its text shows to the draft's owners

    Applied in version 5 Material check title-verdict-agree about article:seattle-homeless-shelter-offers-turned-down:2 (a draft when audited) 9 November 2026 by version 5

  5. A finding on a draft: its text shows to the draft's owners

    Applied in version 7 Material check title-verdict-agree about article:king-county-housing-deaths-not-published:2 (a draft when audited) 8 November 2026 by version 3

All findings →