Let’s do this.

Records · Verification table

Inequality: verification of what changed after the 5 November fresh read, 6 November 2026

The working record behind the pages, published as written. Source file source/verify/inequality-2026-11-06-additions.md. All records.

Scope. Every claim in a line added or changed in content/inequality.html, content/inequality-learn.html and content/inequality-practice.html between ee6f7b8 and HEAD (244a844 when the run started; 8551ff8 when it ended, with no change to these three files in between), from git diff ee6f7b8 HEAD -- <the three pages>, that has no row in source/verify/inequality-2026-11-05.md. Where an applied 5 November fix put a claim under a citation that row had not checked (Learn fact 8, Practice drills 5 and 6), the claim was re-checked against the source it now cites. Where a changed source line added a URL, the URL was fetched and read against the sentence that cites it. The "With others" section of the Practice page (Karlan and List; Karlan and McConnell; the giving-circle and congregation claims; IRS Publication 5347) was written from memory on 6 November and was treated as unverified until each paper's own text was read. The Do page and every other file are out of scope; issues found there are listed as proposals at the end.

Method. Each source was fetched fresh on 2026-11-06 between 14:24 and 14:41 UTC (09:24 to 09:41 EST, stamped with date). WebFetch was tried first on the papers, the PDFs and two HTML pages (Pew, IDEAS). It saved PDFs as binary and, on HTML, paraphrased and declined to quote more than 125 characters. So PDFs were read from the saved file with pdftotext -layout, and HTML pages were pulled with curl (browser user agent), stripped of tags and searched for the exact sentence. Two pages refused curl with 403 (governor.ny.gov, ny.gov) and were read through WebFetch, which answered 200; their quotes are WebFetch's transcription (P1, P3). Crossref's API was used only to confirm where two papers were later published. Web search was used only to find URLs, never as evidence. Nothing below comes from memory.

Verdicts. CONFIRMED = the source's words support the page as written. CORRECTED = the page was changed to match the source. NOT IN SOURCE = the cited source does not say it; the claim was reworded, re-sourced or removed. NEWER DATA = a later edition changes the figure. BLOCKED = the host refused the fetch (403). UNREACHABLE and UNFETCHABLE: none this run. Grades (the site's scale, tools/audit.py): primary, research, news; internal = this repo's own files.

Fetch log.

---

1. Overview — content/inequality.html

#PageClaimSource URLFetchExact quoteVerdictGradeFix applied
O1OverviewDo door: "Give cash directly, write to your legislator about one bill, do free tax returns this winter."content/inequality-do.htmlreadStep headings: "Give cash to people in extreme poverty." / "Write your state legislator about one named bill." / "Do free tax returns this winter."CONFIRMED (mirrors the Do page; "winter" is the Do page's own word, see proposal 2)internalnone
O2OverviewDo door: "Every action graded by its evidence."content/inequality-do.htmlreadEvidence labels on every action: "strong: for recipients", "moderate", "moderate: certain per family", "moderate", "weak: for this organisation", "strong: by construction, for that worker", "moderate: contested".CONFIRMEDinternalnone
O3OverviewDoor label: "5 minutes to a winter of Saturdays"https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/talk-money/become-an-nyc-free-tax-prep-volunteer.page200"Such meaningful impact can result from one shift a week." / "serving as a regular volunteer each week or every other week". No day of the week appears on the page. (The 5 minutes is the Do page's cash step: "5 minutes · any amount".)NOT IN SOURCE (Saturdays)primary"5 minutes to a shift a week in tax season"
O4Overview"Where this started: … an essay from 2025."source/essays/inequality.mdread"Mon, 19 May 2025 13:37:12 GMT" (Medium RSS date of the essay)CONFIRMEDinternalnone
O5Overview"its page lists what has changed since it was written"source/corrections.json; site/inequality/essay/index.htmlreadcorrections.inequality: two entries, the first "No source says five people own as much as the poorest half of humanity…"; the built essay page shows "Since this was written."CONFIRMEDinternalnone

2. Learn — content/inequality-learn.html

#PageClaimSource URLFetchExact quoteVerdictGradeFix applied
L1LearnFact 2: "In the Januaries from 2020 to 2025 Oxfam compared different groups"https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/worlds-billionaires-have-more-wealth-46-billion-people ; https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/mega-rich-recoup-covid-losses-record-time-yet-billions-will-live-poverty-least ; https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity ; https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years ; https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/wealth-five-richest-men-doubles-2020-five-billion-people-made-poorer-decade-division ; https://laos.oxfam.org/latest/press-release/billionaire-wealth-surges-2-trillion-2024-three-times-faster-year-while-number200 ×62020 (20 Jan): "The world's 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than the 4.6 billion people who make up 60 percent of the planet's population". 2021 (25 Jan): "we have not been able to compare the wealth of billionaires to that of the bottom half of humanity as in previous years." 2022 (17 Jan): "They now have six times more wealth than the poorest 3.1 billion people." 2023 (16 Jan): "The richest 1 percent grabbed nearly two-thirds of all new wealth worth $42 trillion created since 2020, almost twice as much money as the bottom 99 percent". 2024 (15 Jan): "The world's five richest men have more than doubled their fortunes from $405 billion to $869 billion since 2020 … while nearly five billion people have been made poorer". 2025 ("Oxfam International published 'Takers Not Makers' report on January 20, 2025"): headline "Billionaire wealth surges by $2 trillion in 2024…"; no bottom-half head count in the text.CONFIRMED (on the six releases; the reports and methodology notes behind them were not read)primarynone
L2LearnFact 2: "The 26 rests on news coverage; the 2019 report itself wouldn't open for us." s1: "the 2019 count of 26 is from news coverage of a report we could not open · news, unread"https://frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/davos-is-here-again-so-its-time-for-oxfams-new-report-heres-what-it-says/ ; report PDF https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/620599/bp-public-good-or-private-wealth-210119-en.pdfblog 200; report 403 (BLOCKED, curl and WebFetch); methodology note 403; www-cdn copy 403Oxfam GB blog, Duncan Green, January 21, 2019: "This year's report, Public Good or Private Wealth?, has the by now familiar 'killer facts' – the world's 26 richest people now own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world – down from 43 in 2017".CORRECTED (the 26 is on an Oxfam-owned page; the report itself is still unread)primary, report: unreadFact 2: "The 26 is from an Oxfam blog post; the 2019 report itself wouldn't open for us." s1: "the 2019 count of 26 is from Duncan Green's Oxfam blog, From Poverty to Power, 21 January 2019, describing a report that would not open for us · primary, report: unread" (no link added)
L3LearnFact 7: "It was 13.4% in 2024." s5: "Poverty in the United States: 2024 (P60-287), September 2025: 13.4% in 2024"https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-287.pdf ; https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2026/demo/p60-290.pdf200; 200P60-287 (Issued September 2025), SPM table: "Under 18 years … 13.7 … 13.4 … –0.3". P60-290 (Issued September 2026), Figure 3, SPM: "Under 18 years 13.4 –0.1" (2025 rate; change from 2024), and: "All SPM estimates for 2019-2024 are based on revised thresholds released by BLS on July 17, 2026." So 2024 is now about 13.5%, and 2025 is 13.4%.NEWER DATAprimaryFact 7: "It was 13.4% in 2025." s5: "Poverty in the United States: 2025 (P60-290), September 2026: 13.4% in 2025" (URL swapped to the newer edition of the same Census report)
L4LearnFact 8: "left on the table, largely, the IRS says, because people don't know they qualify." (cites s6, the IRS participation page)https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/eitc-central/eitc-participation-rate-by-state ; also read, uncited: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/many-people-in-rural-america-qualify-for-earned-income-tax-credit ; https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/many-taxpayers-dont-realize-they-could-benefit-from-the-earned-income-tax-credit ; https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-joins-national-partners-to-launch-eitc-awareness-day200 ×4s6 gives the table and two footnotes ("Approximately,19.2% of all eligible earned income taxpayers in TY2022 didn't claim…"; "the tax year 2022 national estimate, based on the Current Population Survey (CPS) is 78%") and no reason. IR-2017-08 (Historical Content, rural taxpayers): "many of these taxpayers are often not aware that they may qualify for EITC." Tax Tip 2020-12 (Historical Content), title: "Many taxpayers don't realize they could benefit from the earned income tax credit". IR-2026-11 gives no reason. No IRS page says "largely" or ties the reason to the missing fifth.NOT IN SOURCEprimaryClause removed: "Money Congress already set aside, left on the table."
L5LearnContest 1: "The direction leans towards 'inequality slows growth'; 'consistently' overstates it."source/essays/inequality.mdreadThe quoted word is the essay's: "This isn't idealism — it's what the data consistently shows." The Learn page no longer names the essay (its "What the essay argues" section was removed after 5 Nov), so the quote had no referent on the page. The finding itself is rows L38–L41 of 5 Nov.CORRECTED (an orphaned quote)internal; research"The direction leans towards 'inequality slows growth', but not consistently."
L6Learns3: FAO link and "(645 million people faced hunger in 2025)"cited https://www.fao.org/publications/home/fao-flagship-publications/the-state-of-food-security-and-nutrition-in-the-world/en → 301 → https://www.fao.org/publications/fao-flagship-publications/the-state-of-food-security-and-nutrition-in-the-world/en301 → 200"JUST RELEASED The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2026 … It is estimated that 645 million people faced hunger in 2025."CONFIRMEDprimaryURL set to the redirect target
L7LearnFact 10: "since 2016 the Legislature, not the statutory formula or the residents, has set the amount." s8: Anchorage Daily News link, "19 September 2026 (the Legislature has not followed the statutory formula since 2016) · news"https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2026/09/19/alaskans-will-start-getting-1200-permanent-fund-dividend-energy-relief-payments-on-oct-1/200"Published: September 19, 2026". "Alaska lawmakers approved a $1,000 dividend per eligible Alaskan, along with a one-time $200 energy relief payment, when passing the state budget in May. Gov. Mike Dunleavy, who asked lawmakers to use a formula that would have resulted in a $3,650 payment per eligible person in December, signed the budget in June." "The Legislature has not followed the statutory formula to calculate the dividend since 2016…"CONFIRMED (the governor signs the budget; the page follows ADN's wording)newsnone

3. Practice — content/inequality-practice.html

#PageClaimSource URLFetchExact quoteVerdictGradeFix applied
P1PracticeJanuary: "New York's minimum wage has risen each 1 January since 2024"https://www.ny.gov/new-york-states-minimum-wage/new-york-states-minimum-wagecurl 403; WebFetch 200 (table transcribed by WebFetch)Schedule columns end "12/31/22*, 01/01/24, 01/01/25, 01/01/26"; the remainder-of-state row, one value per column, ends "$14.20*, $15.00, $15.50, $16.00". The New York City rows end "$15.00, $16.00, $16.50, $17.00", but WebFetch could not tie each of their cells to a column; the 2024–2026 values match 5 Nov row D10.CONFIRMED (rises on 1 Jan 2024, 2025 and 2026)primarynone
P2PracticeJanuary: "on 1 January 2027 it stays at $17.00 downstate and $16.00 upstate"; s3 quote "On January 1, 2027, New York's minimum wage will stay the same"cited https://dol.ny.gov/minimum-wage-0 → 301 → https://dol.ny.gov/minimum-wage301 → 200"On January 1, 2027, New York's minimum wage will stay the same. The minimum wage rates will be: $17.00 per hour in New York City, Long Island, and Westchester County $16.00 per hour in the rest of New York State"CONFIRMEDprimaryURL set to the redirect target, in the January item and in s3
P3PracticeJanuary: "a rise to $17.60 from 1 March 2027 needs the Legislature"; s3 "($17.60 / $16.55 from 1 March 2027 if the Legislature approves)"https://governor.ny.gov/new-york-state-minimum-wage-2027curl 403; WebFetch 200Title "New York State Minimum Wage for 2027". "$17.60 per hour in New York City, Long Island, and Westchester County"; "$16.55 per hour in the rest of New York State"; "If approved by the State Legislature, new rates would take effect on March 1, 2027."CONFIRMEDprimarynone
P4Practice"One reminder on the first of each month that opens this page. It holds no dates or figures"tools/app.jsread'DTSTART:' + y + pad(m) + '01T100000', 'RRULE:FREQ=MONTHLY'; summary is the page title; description 'Open ' + url + ' and do what is due this month.'CONFIRMEDinternalnone
P5PracticeDrill 5: "The IRS's own explanation for the missing fifth is that many don't know they qualify." (cites s1)https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-joins-national-partners-to-launch-eitc-awareness-day (and the s1 participation and statistics pages)200None of the s1 pages gives a reason. IR-2026-11, Jan. 23, 2026: "The IRS estimates that about one in five EITC-eligible taxpayers don't claim this valuable credit, underscoring the importance of the annual EITC Awareness Day outreach campaign." (The uncited archival pages are in L4.)NOT IN SOURCEprimary"The IRS says the missing fifth is why its yearly awareness day matters."
P6PracticeDrill 6: "set by the Legislature" (cites s8: PFD Division, Jones and Marinescu, ISER)https://pfd.alaska.gov/ ; ADN (L7)200; 200PFD Division: "September 21, 2026 – The 2026 PFD amount is $1,200, which includes a $200 energy relief payment." Nothing on who sets it; Jones and Marinescu and ISER (5 Nov rows L26, L28) do not say either. ADN: "Alaska lawmakers approved a $1,000 dividend … when passing the state budget in May."NOT IN SOURCE (as cited)newss8 gains "Anchorage Daily News, 19 September 2026 (lawmakers set the amount in the state budget) · news" (no link; the article is linked from the Learn page)
P7PracticeWith others: "a one-to-one match raised response 22% and revenue 19%; two-to-one and three-to-one did no better."https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jandreon/PhilanthropyAndFundraising/Volume%202/14%20KarlanList.pdf200"We find that simply announcing that match money is available considerably increases the revenue per solicitation—by 19 percent. In addition, the match offer significantly increases the probability that an individual donates—by 22 percent." The treatment indicator "equals one if individual i received any of the match offers". Abstract: "Larger match ratios (i.e., $3:$1 and $2:$1) relative to a smaller match ratio ($1:$1) had no additional impact, however." Sample: "all 50,083 individuals who have given to the organization at least once since 1991".CORRECTED (the 22% and 19% are for any match offer, not one-to-one alone)research"offering a match raised response 22% and revenue 19%; two-to-one and three-to-one matches did no better than one-to-one."
P8PracticeWith others: "Whether matches raise giving in the long run is contested."Karlan and List (above); https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jandreon/PhilanthropyAndFundraising/Volume%202/13%20Meier.pdf200; 200Karlan and List: "Interestingly, analyzing the trajectory of long-run giving rates, Meier finds that those who received the match give less than the control group." Meier's abstract: "in the periods after the experiment, when matching donations have been stopped, the contribution rate declines for the treatment group. The matching mechanism leads to a negative net effect on the participation rate."CONFIRMED (in the cited paper, which reports Meier; Meier's own abstract read)researchs9 now says Karlan and List also report Meier's finding
P9PracticeWith others: "Recognition after a completed gift raised gift size 14%"https://www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/research-paper/336_187%20hey%20look%20at%20me%20May2013.pdf200"We conducted a field experiment with a telephone fundraising campaign targeting 4,168 prior donors to Dwight Hall". "Dwight Hall regularly published the names of donors who give above $100 dollars sorted in three distinct circles in the annual newsletter". "Our primary treatment mentioned in the phone call the potential for publicly disclosing gifts in a newsletter to alumni." "Average gift size increases by 14%." (Table 2: "Any treatment … Log (1+Gift Amount) 0.140***".)CORRECTED (the treatment was the promise of recognition, made in the call before the gift)research"Telling donors that larger givers are named in a newsletter raised average gift size 14%"
P10PracticeWith others: "advance pledges mostly go unfulfilled" (cites s9)s9's two papers; https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:45fff1a5-80ce-4984-a455-a9cd3e76e886/files/s3r074v86d ; https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecinqu/v60y2022i1p87-100.html200 ×3Neither s9 paper studies pledges (Karlan and McConnell mention only the Giving Pledge's stated aim). Meyer and Tripodi: "Almost all subjects renege on their pledge."; "we find that less than 1 percent of pledges were fulfilled." Capra, Jiang and Su: "pledges are often reneged later, resulting in no overall change in volunteering rates."NOT IN SOURCE (as cited); supported by two studies read today, one of them only to "often"research"advance pledges are often broken"; both studies added to s9 by author, journal and year (no links)
P11PracticeWith others: "Scheduled, supervised shifts are the format with a track record: 84,500 volunteers filed 2.9 million returns last season."https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-access/p5347_accessible.pdf200"During the 2026 filing season, dedicated SPEC partners supported over 9,000 VITA/TCE sites, with more than 84,500 volunteers. VITA/TCE sites prepared and filed over 2.9 million federal tax returns across the country." "For more than 50 years, SPEC's VITA/TCE partners have played a vital role…" Nothing on scheduled or supervised shifts.CORRECTED ("scheduled, supervised" not in source; "more than"; "last season" made a date)primary"Volunteer tax sites have a long track record. In the 2026 filing season, more than 84,500 volunteers prepared and filed over 2.9 million federal returns."
P12PracticeWith others: "Giving circles and congregations: real, but the evidence that they raise giving is members' own reports."https://philanthropy.indianapolis.iu.edu/doc/institutes/giving-circles2017-executive-summary.pdf ; https://johnsoncenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/in-abundance-an-analysis-of-the-thriving-landscape-of-collective-giving-in-the-u-s.pdf ; https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/04/12/religion-in-everyday-life/200 ×3CGRG (Nov 2017): "More than half of GC members report that participation in a giving circle has increased the amount of money and number of organizations they give to"; also "they are more generous than donors not involved in a GC (up to incomes of $100,000/year – differences between donors disappear at higher income levels)" — a survey comparison that cannot separate who joins from what joining does. In Abundance (surveys "conducted in early 2023"; 1,406 member respondents): "A substantial 63% of members reported an increase in the amount they donate, both within and beyond their collective giving group, since joining." Pew: "people who are highly religious are … more likely to volunteer"; "This includes 10% who say they volunteered mainly through a church or religious organization"; "surveys may overstate the extent to which respondents engage in volunteering".CONFIRMED (for congregations the survey evidence is about volunteering and helping the poor, not giving as such)research; primarynone
P13Practices9: "Karlan and List, Does price matter in charitable giving?, American Economic Review, 2007"as P7200"Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment / Author(s): Dean Karlan and John A. List / Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 97, No. 5 (Dec., 2007), pp. 1774-1793"CONFIRMEDresearchnone
P14Practices9: "Karlan and McConnell, Hey look at me: the effect of giving circles on giving, 2013"as P9200"Hey Look at Me: The Effect of Giving Circles on Giving / Dean Karlan and Margaret A. McConnell / May 15, 2013". Its "giving circles" are the newsletter's donor tiers ("Friends", "Benefactor", "Patrons"), not the collective giving groups of the next item.CONFIRMEDresearchGloss added: "(its giving circles are donor tiers named in a newsletter)"
P15Practices9: "the giving-circle and congregation figures are self-reported surveys, summarised in the site's impact review · unread"as P12200 ×3The page shows no giving-circle or congregation figures, and the surveys behind the claim were read today (P12).CORRECTEDresearch; primary"on giving circles, the Collective Giving Research Group, 2017, and Loson-Ceballos and Layton, In Abundance, 2024 · research; on congregations, Pew Research Center, Religion in Everyday Life, 2016 · primary. The giving-circle and congregation evidence is surveys of what people say they give or do." (no links)
P16Practices10: "IRS, Publication 5347, September 2026 · primary"as P11200"Fact Sheet … September 2026"; "Publication 5347 (Rev. 9-2026) Catalog Number 72794H"; title "Quality Statistical Sample (QSS) Review Results for SPEC Partners and Employees". (The PDF's metadata title still says "Rev. 7-2025".)CONFIRMEDprimarynone
P17Practices1: "$2,894 nationally and $2,753 in New York on its statistics page"cited https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit/statistics-for-tax-returns-with-the-earned-income-tax-credit-eitc → 301 → https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/eitc-central/statistics-for-tax-returns-with-the-earned-income-tax-credit-eitc301 → 200"As of December 2025, approximately 24 million workers and families received ~$70 billion in EITC. The average amount of EITC received nationwide in TY 2024 was $2,894." Row: "NY New York 1.5 M $4.2 B $2,753".CONFIRMEDprimaryURL set to the redirect target
P18Practices1: "$2,916 in its January 2026 release"https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-joins-national-partners-to-launch-eitc-awareness-day200"IR-2026-11, Jan. 23, 2026"; "The average EITC amount received nationwide for tax year 2024 was $2,916."CONFIRMEDprimarynone

4. Changed lines already covered by 5 November rows (not re-verified)

5. Summary

30 rows: Overview 5, Learn 7, Practice 18.

VerdictCountRows
CONFIRMED18O1, O2, O4, O5, L1, L6, L7, P1, P2, P3, P4, P8, P12, P13, P14, P16, P17, P18 (L6, P2 and P17 also had their URLs set to the redirect target; P8 and P14 gained a note in s9)
CORRECTED6L2, L5, P7, P9, P11, P15
NOT IN SOURCE5O3 (Saturdays), L4 (Learn fact 8's reason), P5 (drill 5's reason), P6 (drill 6, "set by the Legislature", as cited), P10 (pledges, as cited)
NEWER DATA1L3 (child SPM 13.4% in 2025; 2024 revised)
BLOCKED0 rows; 1 sourceThe 2019 Oxfam report and its methodology note (403). The 26 now rests on Oxfam's own blog (L2). governor.ny.gov and ny.gov refused curl but were read through WebFetch.
UNREACHABLE · UNFETCHABLE0

Where the walk stops: the 26 stops at Oxfam GB's blog, not the report. Learn fact 2's "different groups" rests on six press releases, not on the full reports. Capra, Jiang and Su was read as its abstract only. Pew's survey is about volunteering and helping the poor; no source read today measures whether congregations raise giving. The giving-circle evidence is members' own survey answers; CGRG's comparison with non-members is a survey comparison too. Meier's long-run result was read in his abstract and in Karlan and List's account of it, not in his tables.

6. Proposals outside scope (not applied)

  1. content/inequality-do.html: two cited URLs answer 301 — dol.ny.gov/minimum-wage-0 (→ dol.ny.gov/minimum-wage) and the IRS statistics page (→ irs.gov/tax-professionals/eitc-central/statistics-for-tax-returns-with-the-earned-income-tax-credit-eitc). Its s4 gives Publication 5347's figures as "2.9 million returns, 84,500 volunteers"; the source says "over 2.9 million" and "more than 84,500".
  2. content/inequality-do.html step 3, "Do free tax returns this winter": no source read today says when the 2027 season runs. Publication 5347 shows the 2026 reviews ran from "the week of February 8th" to "the week of April 5th", so the season runs into spring.
  3. The IRS participation page now says "The 78% participation rate based on the CPS is the reported national estimate of the EITC participation rate." The pages quote the table's 80.8% ("about 81%"). Both are on the IRS page; consider "78 to 81%", or naming both, on Learn s6, Practice drill 5 and s1, and the Do page. (In scope pages, but the claim has a 5 Nov row, so it was left.)
  4. Learn fact 7's 5.2% (2021) and 12.4% (2022) are the 2023 release's figures. P60-290 re-estimated every SPM year from 2019 to 2024 on the BLS thresholds of 17 July 2026; check the revised 2021 and 2022 child rates in its Tables 8 and 9 (census.gov/library/publications/2026/demo/p60-290.html) before the next review.
  5. The Practice footer (unchanged) still says the wage floor changes on a schedule that the January items track; the floor does not change on 1 January 2027, and the next decision is 1 March 2027 (5 Nov P17).
  6. source/impact/inequality-2026-11-05.md says of the giving-circle studies "No comparison group in either"; CGRG 2017 does compare members with "donors not involved in a GC" (by survey). The same file's group-format line gives Publication 5347 as "84,500+"; fine.
  7. Who set the 2016 dividend (the Legislature, or a governor's veto) was not checked today. ADN's sentence covers 2016 onwards as "The Legislature has not followed the statutory formula"; Learn fact 10 and the Do page paraphrase it as the Legislature setting the amount since 2016. Worth one primary read (the PFD Division's historical timeline) at the next review.
  8. Visual, site/style.css or tools/app.js: on the Practice page at 1280 px in dark mode, the "Copy" button sits over the end of the prompt's first line ("…"N peopl"). Seen in a screenshot during this run; not changed.
  9. source/stale.tsv: add a September 2027 line for the next Census poverty report (P60 for 2026), which will replace Learn fact 7's 2025 figure.
Contest a fact, suggest something, or tell us what’s broken

If someone is in danger right now, don’t use this form. Call your local emergency number (911 in the US). For trafficking: 1-888-373-7888, or text 233733.

What is it?

No name, no account. Your note goes into the site’s private records, nothing about your browser or connection is stored with it, and the email box is the only way we’d know who you are. The weekly review reads every note, re-reads the original source, and fixes the page if it should. A contested fact and its outcome are listed on Contested, in the review’s words, never yours.

No tracking on any link.Ticks stay on this device.What changedContested