story_id | yes_sources | no_sources | first_word | last_word | rebuttal | no_claims_unchecked | yes_claims_unchecked | claims_checked | O1 | O2 | O3a | O3b | O4 | O5 | O6 | O7 | O8 | O9 | errors | justification
K08 | 3 | 2 | no | yes | Y | none | YLEAVE | none | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | none | O3b: I-645 group argues "no current school or health care funding would be affected". YLEAVE: WPC Frost says "Every state that's implemented these ... taxes has lost wealth", no response. (YCOME from Walsh/Yes campaign is answered by Dhingra, so not listed.) Ryu counted as No (Dem legislator who backs the tax).
K07 | 1 | 1 | yes | yes | Y | none | YCOME | none | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | none | O3b: I-645 group argues "no current school or health care funding would be cut". O4: Villeneuve says "we're expecting to get this money now" (the state is budgeting on it). YCOME: Yes statement "income tax is coming for them", with no response or context.
EH-WSS | 3 | 1 | yes | yes | N | none | none | none | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | possible: "9.9% tax on individual and household wage income above $1 million". The tax is on household income generally, not only wages. Not certain; no correction found. | Yes sources: LGW/Castillo, Arthur West (petition signer suing over the disclosure), Walsh (2024 suit, paraphrased). Rebuttal N because the lead claim (LGW says the statement is inaccurate) gets only an AG "we'll review it". Villeneuve rebuts West only. O3b: LGW argues the only effect is on the current budget, and the state's language describes a "future hypothetical budget".
PUB-20 | 3 | 1 | no | yes | Y | none | none | none | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | none | Yes: Flowers, Pike, Creydt. No: Shepard. Rule/Timmons not coded (no stated I-645 position). O2: reporter's parenthetical "revenues will go into the general fund".
K03 | 2 | 2 | yes | no | Y | N460K | none | none | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | none | N460K: Ferguson/No campaign say the initiative "would reverse tax breaks", stated as a legal effect and never corrected. N13B (Ferguson: "force cuts to K-12") not listed because the story notes "first actual collection will begin in 2029". Ferguson's "must, by law, go to those things" also goes uncorrected (no code fits; contradicts O2). Heywood's YCOME is answered by Ferguson's veto pledge.
K04 | 0 | 3 | no | no | N | N13B;N05;NMEALS;N460K | none | none | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | none | All in the No campaign's claims, relayed with no context. N13B: "cut $13 billion in funding for ... health care, K-12 education and child care". N05: "1% of Washington households — about 20,000". NMEALS: "elimination of free school meals". N460K: "increase taxes for 500,000 working families ... diapers".
ST-EXPAND | 1 | 6 | yes | no | Y | none | none | YCOME;YPENS;NBREAK | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | possible: says the DHM poll showed "54% opposition" with the ballot wording. The anchor figure is 57%. It may be a different DHM release; unverified. | YCOME: reporter analysis of the veto pledge, the 2/3 override and the simple-majority change. YPENS: reporter says "no immediate practical effect — no one is getting $1 million public pensions". NBREAK: reporter places "tax break" next to "from being collected starting in 2029". O7: reporter voice "Union-funded campaign ads". No sources: Ferguson, No campaign ads, Ryu, Sims, Pedersen, Dhingra.
SR-10M | 3 | 3 | yes | yes | Y | NVOTE | YLEAVE | N460K | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | none | NVOTE: Riccelli "voters will always have a say"; no one notes a simple majority can lower the threshold. YLEAVE: Gordon "A lot of folks have already moved to Idaho", unchecked. N460K checked / O1: reporter "Technically, the initiative would only repeal the tax itself, not the tax breaks". NHEDGE (Houser) not listed because fundraising totals show No ($5M) ahead of the Yes campaign ($1.2M). N13B (Houser) not listed because the story gives the Jan 2028 effective date. O7: No campaign's largest donations are from public-employee unions, and No outraised Yes.
R1 | 1 | 2 | no | no | Y | N13B;NHEDGE | none | none | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | "estimated $3 billion in revenue a year ... is earmarked in the law for education, childcare and food security programs". Wrong: revenue goes to the general fund, with only 5% to Fair Start from 2029. No correction found. | N13B: Ferguson "cuts to education"; the story has no 2029 start and no general-fund context (the reporter says the money is earmarked). NHEDGE: reporter voice calls Heywood a "hedge-fund and conservative political activist", with no fundraising context. O1: reporter "a repeal of just the Millionaires Tax ... even as the law ... rolled out other policies" and "would only repeal the Millionaires Tax". Also, in reporter voice, WA unemployment "second highest in the nation" (not exactly YUNEMP).
R4 | 1 | 1 | no | yes | Y | none | none | none | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | "The bill will impose a 9.9% tax on those earning one million dollars per year or more". The tax applies only to income above $1M, not to all income of those earners. No correction found. | Explainer with generic "Supporters"/"Opponents" only; each side counted as 1. O3a: "set to take effect in 2028".
PUB-01 | 1 | 1 | yes | no | Y | none | none | none | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | none | O1: reporter says the initiative "would keep those promises but erase the tax". O4: reporter says the Legislature must "find a way in the 2027 legislative session to pay", and "lose out on tax dollars the Legislature counted on". Treasurer Pellicciotti coded neutral.
PUB-12 | 1 | 2 | no | yes | N | none | YCOME | none | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | possible: reporter voice "Without the tax, the program would lose funding due to the state's ongoing budget crisis". Overstated: no current Working Connections appropriation relies on the tax, and the 5% Fair Start share begins July 2029. No correction found. | O4: reporter ties the funding loss to the budget crisis if the tax is repealed. YCOME: Heywood says Democrats "won't stop at incomes of $1 million"; no veto or threshold context. Rebuttal N because Heywood does not answer the daycare claim. O2=0: the story mentions only the 5% earmark and never says the rest goes to the general fund.
ST-MSFT | 1 | 3 | no | no | Y | none | none | none | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | none | No: Pedersen, public-sector unions (paraphrased), Kaushik. Yes: Gordon. Roundtable/Brad Smith coded neutral. O2: "most of that devoted to the state operating budget". O7: No over $12M "fueled mostly by public sector unions" vs Yes about $2M.
PUB-02 | 1 | 2 | no | no | Y | none | none | N460K;YUNCON | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | none | N460K checked / O1: reporter "would only repeal the tax, while leaving in place the tax breaks". YUNCON checked: Heywood's "unconstitutional income tax" is set against the reporter's note of a pending legal challenge. Heywood's YCOME is answered by Ferguson. O7: "Labor unions ... are chief backers".
C2 | 1 | 1 | no | yes | N | none | YLEAK | none | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | "income tax that currently has an exemption for individuals who make less than $1 million a year". Inaccurate: it is a $1M household standard deduction, and only income above $1M is taxed. The lede also states as fact that unions "will directly benefit". No correction found. | YLEAK: reporter voice "emails obtained showing ... Pedersen collaborated with the State Attorney General's Office", given as established with no context. Glickman's N13B is not listed because the reporter notes "the majority of the revenue would go into the state general fund" (O2). O7: unions "virtually all the contributions".
C1 | 1 | 1 | yes | yes | Y | none | YCOME | none | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | none | O1: LGW release says relief "will remain uncut". YCOME: Heywood "Olympia expanding their state income tax on all Washingtonians", with no response.
C6 | 2 | 2 | no | yes | Y | none | YUNCON;YLEAK | none | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | none | YUNCON: LGW "his unconstitutional tax", with no note that the challenge is pending. YLEAK: LGW cites Pedersen's communications with the AG's office, no context. O1: reporter "other tax benefits ... would remain intact". O2: Frost on general fund plus 5% Fair Start. O4: Frost says revenues will "backfill a budget hole". O7: No about $10M, union-led, vs Yes about $5M. No sources: WEA, Seattle Times editorial board. Yes sources: LGW, WPC.
C7 | 3 | 0 | yes | yes | N | none | none | none | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | none | Yes: BIAW Lane, WPC Frost, Walsh. Sierra Club and Pacifica (on I-2066) not coded as I-645 sides. O1: Frost says the initiative leaves the SB 6346 tax relief intact. O9=0: single-subject risk to the tax law, not I-645's text risk to the cap-gains tax.
S10 | 2 | 1 | yes | yes | N | none | YPENS;YCOME | NBREAK | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | (1) "The $13 billion figure is the No campaign's four-year projection". Wrong: $13B is the fiscal note's gross FY2029-32 estimate. (2) Headline/deck in outlet voice, "income tax that stripped 79-year-old pension protections from teachers and cops", implies ordinary pensions are taxed; only households over $1M are affected. No correction found. | YPENS: campaign/outlet say pension protections were stripped from teachers, firefighters and police, and Social Security isn't shielded; nothing notes only >$1M households pay. YCOME: campaign "this tax is coming for everyone". NBREAK checked: reporter gives the $11.4B FIS figure and that the state "has not collected a dime". O2: "money goes to the general fund, with 5% earmarked". O7: No $11.5M "mostly from public-employee unions".
M4 | 1 | 1 | no | yes | Y | none | none | YCOME | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | none | YCOME checked: reporter says Ryu/Salomon positions "are separate from the tax currently on the books, which applies to income above $1 million". Sims' NBREAK/N13B are not listed because the story gives the 2028 effective date. Last advocate: "Opponents contend it violates a 1933 ... ruling" (yes).