Overall Review

What it checks

1. 1

   Central claims are accurate claims-accurate

   Rating each major claim True, Mostly True, Mixed, Mostly False, False, or Unverifiable, are the article's central claims accurate?

   9 findings · 1 applied
2. 2

   Claims are supported and labeled claims-supported

   Is every major claim backed by cited evidence, and does the article keep verifiable facts, reasonable inferences, and opinion or speculation clearly apart?

   18 findings · 2 applied
3. 3

   Sourcing is strong and transparent sourcing-quality

   Does the article rely on primary or high-quality secondary sources, rather than weak, circular, anonymous, or partisan ones, and is it clear which source supports which claim?

   18 findings · 3 applied
4. 4

   Context is complete context-and-omissions

   Does the article include the context and contrary evidence a reader needs, with no omission that changes the overall impression?

   22 findings · 5 applied
5. 5

   Framing is fair and neutral framing-fair

   Is the framing and emphasis fair, applying the same standards regardless of side, and does the article represent the original claim and the people who make it accurately?

   2 findings · 1 applied
6. 6

   Uncertainty is stated uncertainty-stated

   Where evidence is incomplete, contested, or still developing, does the article say so rather than invent certainty, and where evidence conflicts, does it present the strongest evidence on each side and explain which is more credible?

   5 findings · 1 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. Check 'claims-accurate' is Fail The central claims are false, fabricated, or severely misleading, or the article fails on more than one front. It reads more as misinformation than as fact-checking.
2. 2 or more checks are Fail The central claims are false, fabricated, or severely misleading, or the article fails on more than one front. It reads more as misinformation than as fact-checking.
3. Any check is Fail Several serious problems or one failed check: significant factual errors, omissions that create a false impression, or weak, circular, or partisan sourcing. The overall narrative is unreliable.
4. 2 or more checks are Concern (material) Several serious problems or one failed check: significant factual errors, omissions that create a false impression, or weak, circular, or partisan sourcing. The overall narrative is unreliable.
5. Any check is Concern (material) One serious problem: an important claim is inaccurate or misleading, key context is missing, sourcing is uneven, or framing noticeably shapes the reader's understanding. The article needs significant outside verification.
6. 2 or more checks are Concern (minor) Most claims are accurate, with only minor errors, overstatements, or omissions that don't change the core message, or a check the auditor could not complete. Sourcing is generally solid and framing largely fair.
7. Any check is not checked Most claims are accurate, with only minor errors, overstatements, or omissions that don't change the core message, or a check the auditor could not complete. Sourcing is generally solid and framing largely fair.
8. Otherwise Virtually all major claims are accurate and well supported by primary or high-quality evidence, with no significant errors, distortions, or misleading omissions. Sourcing is strong and transparent, context is fair, and caveats are clearly noted. A single minor note for the author does not lower the grade.

From its instructions

An end-to-end fact-check of the fact-check. It rates each of the article's key claims (True, Mostly True, Mixed, Mostly False, False, or Unverifiable) against the cited sources, then asks whether the central claims are accurate and supported, whether the sourcing is primary and transparent, whether context or contrary evidence is missing, whether the framing is fair and neutral, and whether uncertainty is stated honestly. Accuracy weighs heaviest: a failed accuracy check gives an F. It may use its own knowledge only to raise questions the article should answer, never as proof of a Fail. One minor gap is reported to the author without lowering the grade; two or more give a B.

Recent audits

1. If I-645 passes, the tax relief for working families stays in place. Version 1 · 3 of 6 checks passed · 22 October 2026 by auditor version 1
2. X is among the most permissive social networks Version 5 · 3 of 6 checks passed · 11 October 2026 by auditor version 1
3. Washington's pursuit limits likely added to the car-theft surge; how much is unknown. Version 6 · 3 of 6 checks passed · 11 October 2026 by auditor version 1
4. Hydropower generates most of Washington's electricity; Grand Coulee leads U.S. plants by capacity. Version 2 · 4 of 6 checks passed · 11 October 2026 by auditor version 1
5. Washington's budget more than doubled in a decade, outpacing population and inflation Version 3 · 4 of 6 checks passed · 11 October 2026 by auditor version 1

All audits →

Latest findings

1. Drop 'unambiguous' and 'every source agrees': the initiative's title says it repeals all of chapter 238, so describe the operative-clause reading as strongly supported rather than unambiguous.

   Open Minor check uncertainty-stated about article:i645-relief-stays-460000-families:1 (a draft when audited) 22 October 2026 by version 1

2. Address the small-business part of the claim explicitly in the conclusion, and state whether any relief section is contingent on the repealed tax.

   Open Minor check context-and-omissions about article:i645-relief-stays-460000-families:1 (a draft when audited) 22 October 2026 by version 1

3. Show the fiscal-note line items and arithmetic behind the ~$1 billion/year total; only the $226M WFTC figure is currently cited.

   Open Minor check claims-supported about article:i645-relief-stays-460000-families:1 (a draft when audited) 22 October 2026 by version 1

4. Address post-2022 reports of X restricting speech on its own initiative, such as treating 'cis' and 'cisgender' as slurs in 2023, so readers can weigh practice against written rules.

   Open Minor check context-and-omissions about article:x-most-permissive-social-network:5 11 October 2026 by version 1

5. Cite Zuckerberg's and Alphabet's letters and Meta's Q1 2025 integrity report directly, and list Truth Social's Community Guidelines as the source of the quoted viewpoint pledge.

   Open Minor check sourcing-quality about article:x-most-permissive-social-network:5 11 October 2026 by version 1

All findings →