The record
The corrections log
Trust is built by showing the work — including the mistakes. When a published figure changes because a source conflicted, a bill passed, or we got it wrong, the change is logged here. The log begins on 11 July 2026. The most recent was 29 October 2026. Dated, public, permanent — nothing is edited away.
See something wrong that is not listed here yet? Found an error? Tell us
Every correction, newest first
Each entry names what was published, what it is now, and how the change was found. The label on the right says what kind of change it was.
- Oct 29 · Five Twenties Episode 4 said a new graduate has $31,149 left after rent. That left out federal income tax and payroll tax. $23,383 is left. Episode 4: Recent Grads took rent and Colorado taxes and fees out of $50,355 of first-year pay and called the $31,149 that remained what is left for food, transport, insurance and savings. It did not take out federal income tax ($3,914 for a single filer on 2025 brackets) or employee payroll tax ($3,852), $7,766 in all. The page now shows $31,149 as what is left after rent and Colorado taxes, then the federal line, then $23,383 left. Per $100 of pay, that is $46.44. The page also said that with no Colorado income tax the graduate would be “$6,000 short of the affordability line.” That line is set on gross pay, so state tax does not move it; the gap is still $7,645.corrected
- Oct 29 · Five Twenties Episode 1 printed federal tax as $15.30 of every $100. Its own model gives $15.27, so tax takes $19.33 and $50.20 is left. Episode 1: The Everyday Wallet models $7,397 of federal income tax on the $97,113 median household income, which is 7.62%, plus employee payroll tax at 7.65%. That is $15.27 of every $100. The page rounded it to 15.3% and printed $15.30, which made all tax $19.36 and left $50.17. The bar, the legend, the closing card and the series index now read $15.27, $19.33 and $50.20.corrected
- Oct 17 · Cost of Living said the electric-vehicle road fee is written into law through FY 2032-33. The statute’s schedule ends FY 2031-32, and inflation indexing starts in FY 2032-33. The fees section of Cost of Living said the electric-vehicle fee is “written into law through FY 2032-33,” while the table below it said the statutory schedule ends FY 2031-32. The Division of Motor Vehicles prints the schedule through June 30, 2032 and says inflation will not begin until FY 2032-33. The sentence now matches the table and the chart. No figure changed.corrected
- Oct 15 · The FBI crime-rate charts said they divide by a “matched population.” They divide by the FBI’s population for the whole state or nation. The wording is corrected, and 2021 now shows the FBI’s national estimate as a separate point. The six charts setting Colorado against the U.S. on Results said each rate was reported offenses over the FBI system’s own “matched population.” The population the FBI returns with those counts is every resident, not only those whose agencies reported, and that is the one we used. No rate changed. In 2021 national reporting covered too few residents for the reported U.S. line to publish, and it stays blank. The FBI’s own estimate for that year, which adds offenses for areas that did not report, is now drawn as a separate ring on each chart and labeled as an estimate. It is never joined to the reported line.corrected
- Oct 15 · The crime section said Colorado’s two violent-crime counts were both right and counted different things. CBI’s count is the reliable one, and the page now says why the other runs higher. On Results, the violent-crime panel set CBI’s Colorado Crime Stats beside the state’s open-data extract and said “Neither source is wrong — they count different things under the same word.” That was not accurate. The FBI’s own Colorado counts for murder, robbery and aggravated assault land within about 2% of CBI’s, and the ingest now checks that on every run. The open-data extract has one row for each offense for each offender, while CBI counts a robbery once per incident and an assault or sex offense once per victim. That is why the extract shows more robberies and murders and fewer assaults. The same panel also said CBI’s Property Crime theme covered only robbery. It has theft, burglary, fraud and vehicle-theft sections, though still no property-crime total, so nothing new is charted. No figure changed.corrected
- Oct 13 · North I-25 Segment 5’s contracts were counted as approved money in Weld County’s total. They were also set against CDOT’s funding as a change. Both are corrected. The $214.52M on North I-25 Segment 5 is our sum of three contract values on CDOT’s dashboards. No budget appropriated that amount, but every total of approved projects added it. On Follow Your Dollar, Weld County read $520M funded and underway over two projects ($519.52M). It now reads $305M over one project, with the $214.52M on its own line as contracts awarded. Weld’s $87M in requests did not change. The same rule applies to the statewide ledger, which drops from $5,502.12M over 23 approved projects to $5,287.6M over 22. On the Findings page, the five largest projects now hold 67.6% of it (was 65.0%), and transportation holds 85.4% (was 86.0%). The project page also printed “Up 114.5% from $100M”, which set the contract sum against the roughly $100M of funding CDOT says it has identified. Those are two different figures. The page now shows them side by side, each with its own label and source, with no percentage between them. Segment 5 is no longer an estimate pair. So the drift watchlist average on project pages now covers 4 of 53 projects, not 5. It reads +35% per project and +18% dollar-weighted, down from +51% and +23%. MyUI+’s $86.2M was appropriated and stays in the statewide figures.corrected
- Oct 13 · Two projects showed our sum of their parts as the project’s estimated total cost. Each sum is now named for what it adds up. For North I-25 Segment 5, the $214.52M is our sum of the current values of the three construction contracts on CDOT’s dashboards. For MyUI+, the $86.2M is our sum of two capital appropriations that a Legislative Council Staff memo states together. Each page, its share card, the Projects list and Near you called that sum the estimated total cost of the project. Neither publisher prints a project total. Segment 5 now reads Contracts awarded so far, and MyUI+ reads Capital money appropriated. Both keep the CALC label and show their formula. The figures did not change, and no total on the site changed.revised
- Oct 13 · Two CDOT projects showed a construction cost as the project’s total cost. Each figure is now named as CDOT names it. CDOT’s pages for US 6 Elk Creek and Vasquez Boulevard print a Construction Cost of $10 million and $10.9 million. Each project page, its share card and its page summary called that figure the estimated total cost of the project. CDOT does not say it is. It prints no project total, and on Vasquez Boulevard the one contract on CDOT’s dashboard is worth more than the construction cost. Each page now calls the figure a construction cost and says that it is not the whole project’s cost. The figures did not change, and no total on the site changed.revised
- Oct 12 · Bills that died in committee or on a floor vote showed “Not stated” as their outcome. The postponed-indefinitely counts on the Findings page were too low. Both are corrected. The same fault as the signed bills above: we read a bill’s outcome only from its fiscal note, and a note that was written before a bill ended says nothing about how it ended. 17 bills in the 2025 and 2026 sessions that a committee voted to postpone indefinitely, or that lost a floor vote, showed Not stated on Before It’s Law while the legislature’s page for each one records the ending. We now read it from that page’s bill history, in the legislature’s own words. The Findings page now reads 140 of 626 bills (22.4%) postponed indefinitely in the 2026 regular session, up from 133 (21.2%), and 123 of 658 (18.7%) in 2025, up from 115 (17.5%). One 2025 bill that lost a House vote moved into “Lost in House”. Four bills whose last recorded step is a committee laying the bill over still show Not stated, because the page does not call that an ending, so the shares stay stated as a floor.corrected
- Oct 12 · Signed bills showed “Not stated” as their outcome, and the signed-into-law counts on the Findings page were too low. Both are corrected. We read a bill’s outcome only from its fiscal note, and a note prints an outcome only if it was written after the bill was disposed of. A bill signed after its last note, and the Long Bill, which has no fiscal note at all, therefore showed Not stated on Before It’s Law while the legislature’s own page for each one said the Governor had signed it. That was 87 bills in the 2025 and 2026 sessions, including HB26-1410, the Long Bill (signed 8 May 2026, chapter 436). Because the Findings page counts outcomes from the same records, it undercounted. It now reads 436 of 626 bills (69.6%) signed into law in the 2026 regular session, up from 395 (63.1%), and 477 of 658 (72.5%) in 2025, up from 434 (66.0%). Postponed-indefinitely counts did not change. We now take the Governor’s signature or veto from the bill history on the legislature’s page when no note states an outcome. Bills that ended in committee or on a floor vote still show Not stated, so the shares stay stated as a floor.corrected
- Oct 12 · The TABOR refund forecast on our pages was the June 2026 one. It is now the September 2026 forecast, which adds a year. Our pages showed the TABOR refund as Legislative Council Staff forecast it in June 2026: $329.9 million for the FY 2026-27 surplus and $521.0 million for FY 2027-28. The same office published a newer September 2026 forecast on 18 September. It puts the two refunds at $463.7 million and $490.7 million, and it adds FY 2028-29 at $651.5 million. Nobody made a mistake. A forecast is a claim about a year that has not ended, and the newer one replaces the older one. We should have made the change sooner. The September forecast also takes $275.1 million off the FY 2026-27 refund for refunds paid out too high in earlier years. FY 2025-26 still shows no refund, because revenue was $175.9 million under the cap. Every page that shows these refunds now shows the September figures, each marked as a forecast: the budget page, Cost of Living, the TABOR question on Questions and its share card, and the record on Ask WB. A check now fails if the site shows an older forecast while it holds a newer one.refreshed
- Oct 12 · The contract growth finding read only the first project of each combined CDOT contract. All projects are read now. The Findings page said that of 3,026 finished CDOT construction contracts, 1,936 (64.0%) ended above the amount CDOT awarded them at, and that the middle contract grew by 3.22%. Our reader of CDOT’s pay estimates had a fault. A pay estimate for a combined contract (its ID ends in COMBO) lists one summary for each project it pays, and the reader took only the first. For 31 of the 3,026 contracts that gave the wrong amounts. On the older layout (27 of the 31) it set the first project’s current amount against the whole contract’s award, so a contract could read as shrinking by as much as 89%. With every project read, 14 of the 31 moved from below their award to above it. The figures now read 1,950 of 3,026 (64.4%) above the award, 35.5% below, and 3.27% for the middle contract. For contracts awarded from 2010 to 2026 the share above the award moved from 58.5% to 59.4%. The finding still holds: most finished contracts end above their award. The same fix reads 58 estimates that a one-cent check had set aside. CDOT rounds the retainage it withholds, so 58 pages differ from their own sum by exactly one cent and none by more. Pages two cents off are still set aside. The Findings page and the numbers beside each finding come from the same data, and both now show the corrected figures.corrected
- Oct 11 · We re-read the business confidence page against the university’s reports. One reading was wrong, and several claims were stronger than the record. Our business confidence page carried one wrong reading and several claims its sources do not support. We re-read every figure against the university’s own reports on 11 October 2026. The wrong reading. We had the national expectations component for Q3 2024 as 48.6, taken from a news report. The official Leeds report for that quarter says 46.8, and the next quarter’s report repeats it. That quarter’s Colorado premium moves from +2.6 to +4.4. The average premium before 2025 moves from +6.3 to +6.4, and the best-fit slopes move with it. We also filled one component that the page had marked pending: the Q3 2010 state reading, 56.1, which the Q4 2010 report prints. Claims we could not support, now reworded. We said the premium went negative in 2025 “for the first time in the record”. The archive of earlier readings shows it was last negative in 2005, so the page now says “since 2005”. We said 19 of 28 readings below neutral was a run without precedent. The archive does support a narrower claim, and the page now states it with its figures. We gave the 2024 election mention as 39.7% (the report says 40%), put 14 committees behind the annual outlook (the outlook says 13 estimating groups), said producer fees under the packaging law began in 2025 (the first fees came due in January 2026), and called a national job-growth quote a Colorado one. We cited an 18.7% U.S. office vacancy rate that we could not find in the cited CBRE page. The page now uses CBRE’s 18.3% for Q2 2026 and 40.1% for downtown Denver in Q3 2026. Still open. The 2025 midyear issue of the Colorado Business Review ranks Colorado 43rd for job growth in its scorecard table and 33rd in its own text for June 2025. The page shows both.corrected
- Oct 11 · We withdraw the claim that the state’s spending ledger is dark or stale. It is current, and it is partial. Earlier, this site said the state’s spending ledger, the Transparency Online Project (TOPS), was dark, frozen or last updated on Nov 18, 2022. The entry of Oct 10 took the day count off Follow Your Dollar. We withdraw that claim wherever it was made. The ledger is current. On 11 October 2026 it listed payments dated 2 October 2026 for all 23 state departments, month by month from July 2014. Current does not mean complete. On 11 October 2026 we took the ledger’s own export for every month and every department. For the year ended 30 June 2025 it lists $42.24 billion. The state’s audited annual report lists $56.29 billion in total expenses for the same year. $42.24 billion ÷ $56.29 billion = 75.0% (CALC, arithmetic on two published figures). The ledger leaves out three kinds of payment. It has no Medicaid claims since March 2017. It has none of the Department of Transportation’s payments to contractors and vendors, only that department’s payroll and bond interest. And for most Higher Education and Revenue dollars it shows a code where the name of who was paid belongs. August to December 2015 have no rows for any department. The ledger has no project or contract field, so it cannot show what was spent on one project. Eleven project pages said spend-to-date would fill from TOPS, and six more said line items could be reconciled from it. That was wrong, and those pages no longer say it. One more fix to the entry of Oct 10: the 2022 dates are when four pages about the ledger were created, not when they were last changed. The narration of chapter 5 of the help films still gives the 2022 date. This entry is the correction to it. We do not say the state broke any law.withdrawn
- Oct 11 · Follow Your Dollar said we had filed a records request. We had not. Several places on Follow Your Dollar, and one early Weekly Brief, said we had filed or sent a public-records request to the state for its spending records, and that the answer was still due. No request was sent. We have taken that wording down. What changed. The ZIP code box, the county benchmark note, the “what a county paid in” section and the round-trip diagram no longer mention a request. The 13 August brief no longer says a request is unanswered. What stays true. The state publishes tax receipts by county in no system, so that section stays blank. The state’s payment ledger records the department, fund, expense type, date, amount and who was paid. It records no ZIP code or location, so spending by ZIP cannot be read from it. No figure changed.withdrawn
- Oct 11 · We have no copy of the CDOT payment feed for 25 August. We will not estimate that week. Not a figure moving — a statement of what one missing week means, and of what we will not do about it. CDOT’s list of vendor payments is a rolling feed, and the state keeps no archive of it, so we copy it each week. We did not copy it on 25 August 2026, and that copy cannot be made again. What the gap costs. We compared the copies on either side. All 147,906 payment records in the 18 August copy are in the 1 September copy, with the same payee, date and amount. The 1 September copy adds 7,485 records, all dated August. So no record was lost. What we do not have is the feed as it stood on 25 August. We cannot say which of those 7,485 records readers could see that week. We will not estimate that week. An estimate drawn from the 18 August and 1 September copies would print a week that nobody published. The feed restates itself, so the weeks on either side do not say what the week between them said. No figure on this site is worked out across 25 August. A window that spans it stays blank and names this gap. The gap stays in this log, and it is not removed when later weeks are copied. From now on, a missing week stops our publishing checks until it is logged here. Ruled on 11 October 2026. The entry of Sep 15 stays as written.clarified
- Oct 10 · The state’s spending ledger is current. We said it had not been updated since 2022. Our Follow Your Dollar page counted the days since the state’s own spending ledger, the Transparency Online Project (TOPS), was last updated. It counted from Nov 18, 2022. That was wrong. That date came from four pages about TOPS on the state’s open-data portal. It is when those pages were last changed, and it says nothing about the ledger’s data. The ledger itself is current. We read the state’s TOPS Expenses page on 10 October 2026. Its month filter ran from July 2014 to October 2026. It listed payments dated 1 October 2026, and it has an Export Data button. The page says its data is updated every five business days. We removed the day count. The page now shows the payment date we read and the day we read it. A note on Ask WB called those four pages TOPS spending datasets. It now says what they are. A draft Weekly Brief dated 13 August made the same claim. We removed that sentence. The narration of chapter 5 of the help films still gives the 2022 date. This entry is the correction to it.corrected
- Oct 10 · Two figures on Follow Your Dollar now carry the label that describes them — no figure changes. On Follow Your Dollar, the sales-tax line in the estimate and the total under “The minimum you are paying” are kept low on purpose, so each now carries FLOOR beside its CALC label. The Honesty Framework defines FLOOR as a figure where we know who gets the money and estimate how much, low. The vehicle FASTER surcharge line is vehicles times $37.30 with the arithmetic shown, so it now reads CALC where it read FACT. The $37.30 rate itself is still a FACT from an official record. No amount on any page changed. It is logged because a label is a claim about how we know a number.clarified
- Oct 10 · How many labels a number carries — no figure changes. The Honesty Framework page said a number takes one of five labels. It also said ANALYSIS is “not a number” and never sits on a figure. Both could not be true. Every number carries one of four labels: FACT, CALC, SAMPLE or PENDING. ANALYSIS labels a judgment, never a number. The heading, the opening line, the page description that search results and link previews show, and the first item under what a conforming site does now say so. The definitions did not change, and no figure on any page changed. It is logged because a standard that contradicts itself about its own labels is a claim like any other.clarified
- Oct 9 · Colorado’s funding per pupil showed two figures for the same year. It now shows one. Our pages showed two different figures for Colorado’s funding per pupil in FY 2025-26. The state pages said $11,858. The five city What It Buys pages, added on 8 and 9 October, said $11,876.12. Both are the same measure: Total Program funding divided by the funded pupil count. They come from two dates. The $11,858 is the legislative staff’s estimate from July 2025, which says of itself that it “reflect[s] forecasted amounts” to be adjusted on actual pupil counts. The $11,876.12 is the state education department’s funding worksheet of 14 January 2026, on the October 2025 count. The legislative staff’s own 2026 handbook now gives the year as $11,876. Every page now shows the newer figure. Total Program for the year moves with it, from $10,031,606,090 to $9,998,058,062.99, so the total still divides into the per-pupil figure beside it. Earlier years now come from the same worksheets, to the cent. Each one moves by less than a dollar; FY 2022-23 now reads $9,595.45 where it read $9,596. The rise since FY 2019-20 reads 39.9%, not 39.7%.corrected
- Oct 6 · Our own automated checks are now left out of the traffic count — Our own testing tools open the site to check it, and they now say so in the browser name they send. A visit that carries that note is not counted: no page view, no page-speed reading, no interaction. Before today a headless test browser was dropped by the platform as a robot, and a test browser with our note on the end would not be, so this closes that gap. It changes nothing for a reader: nothing new is collected, and the note is not a signal your browser sends. The privacy page and the methodology page carry the full wording.disclosed
- Oct 5 · Three CDOT projects with their own monthly dashboards were missing from the Projects page. The list grows from 50 projects to 53. CDOT posts a monthly dashboard for CO 119 Safety and Mobility, US 6 Elk Creek and Vasquez Boulevard Improvements. We had read each dashboard, but none of the three was a row in our ledger, so none had a project page, a map pin or a pacing page. Each is now a row with CDOT’s own project page as its source: CO 119 at $165M, US 6 Elk Creek at $10.0M and Vasquez Boulevard at $10.9M. Each estimate comes from CDOT’s project page, never from a contract value, and no contract is added into an estimate. The approved total on Projects moves from $5,316.22M across 20 projects to $5,502.12M across 23, a change of $185.9M. The requested total, $732.4M, and the halted total do not change. Contractor names stay withheld, and each pacing page says its comparison is a question to ask, not a verdict. We found it on October 5, 2026.corrected
- Oct 3 · Sixteen CDOT projects on the Projects page showed one end of a cost range as if it were CDOT’s figure. CDOT prints some costs as a range. For Weld County ADA Ramps it says “$5 - 20 Million.” We showed “Cost: $5” and labeled it FACT. CDOT never said $5, and the word “million” was lost too. Thirteen rows had this shape. Three more showed “$1 million” where CDOT says “Between $1 million and $5 million.” Each row now shows the whole range in CDOT’s words, labeled FACT. A range is not one number, so these rows are not sorted by cost and are in no size band. The Size filter lists them on their own. The same fix reaches each project’s own page, Near You and the Weekly Briefs. We found it on October 3, 2026.corrected
- Sep 25 · Entering a ZIP now also counts which state it belongs to — Until today, entering a ZIP on Follow Your Dollar counted one of four answers: one county, a split, not listed, or not a Colorado ZIP. Every ZIP box on the site now gives a full answer, and the count follows it. It records which kind of answer came back, which state or territory a U.S. ZIP belongs to, whether a foreign code looks Canadian or British, the shape of the entry (five digits, ZIP+4, letters) and which page it was on. When you open the link that asks us to come to your state, we count that too, with the state. The ZIP itself is never recorded. Every one of these is a fixed list of values, so there is no place a ZIP could go. The methodology page carries the full wording.disclosed
- Sep 25 · Colorado’s unemployment rate now comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics directly, and its newest month moves from May to August 2026. The answer to “Is anyone out of work right now?” on Questions said Colorado’s rate was 3.9% in May 2026, and the U.S. rate that month was 4.3%. It now says 4.0% in August 2026, and 4.1% for the U.S. that month. The Bureau of Labor Statistics marks August preliminary and may revise it when it publishes September, so the answer says so. The May figure was right for May. It came from the state labor department’s copy of the federal series on the state’s open-data portal. That copy stopped at May, and its last update was August 18. By then the department and the Bureau had both published June, July and August. We now read the series from the Bureau (LASST080000000000003), and Ask WB shows every month from January 2019. The Bureau’s figure for May is also 3.9%, so no month we published changed. We found it on September 24, 2026.revised
- Sep 25 · The Floyd Hill project page listed the project’s $905M total as a contract with its construction contractor, above that contractor’s four real contracts. The table of who is being paid had a row for the construction manager and general contractor with the value “$905M program.” $905 million is CDOT’s estimate of what the whole project will cost. It is not a contract. On September 25 we added the contractor’s four contracts from CDOT’s monthly dashboards, with what CDOT has paid on each. The older row stayed above them, so the table showed the same contractor twice, once at the cost of the whole project. The four contracts add to $678.15M. We removed the older row. The $905M estimate still shows as the project’s total cost, and no other figure changes. We found it on September 25.corrected
- Sep 25 · The Weekly Brief of September 24 listed North I-25 Segment 6 under Weld County only. The project also runs through Larimer County. The brief can show a reader the projects that changed in their own county. It placed each project by the one point we draw it at on the map. A highway corridor crosses more than one county, and its point sits in only one of them. So the brief listed North I-25 Segment 6, between Berthoud and Johnstown, under Weld County alone. A reader following Larimer County was not told that the project is now complete. Follow Your Dollar already listed it in both counties, and the I-25 South Gap in both Douglas and El Paso counties. The brief would have listed the South Gap under El Paso County alone, but the South Gap did not change that week, so no brief showed it. Each project now states its counties once, on its own row of our project list, and the brief, Follow Your Dollar and each project’s own page read that one list. The brief of September 24 now lists Segment 6 under both Larimer and Weld. No figure changes. We found it on September 25.corrected
- Sep 25 · Follow Your Dollar said 7 statewide projects worth $384M serve every county. One of them, worth $42M, was halted in 2020. Follow Your Dollar names the statewide projects on our list that serve every county at once. That count included the state’s HR and payroll system project, HRWorks. The state appropriated $41.6M for it and ended it in 2020 before it was finished. It serves no county. The line said 7 statewide projects worth $384M. It now says 6 worth $343M, and names the halted project apart: one more, worth $42M, was funded and then halted before it was finished. The $41.6M still counts as money the state approved, so it stays in every approved total on Projects. We found it on September 25.corrected
- Sep 25 · We said no one publishes what a Colorado project has spent. For Floyd Hill and North I-25 Segment 5, CDOT does, contract by contract. Projects and the note at the foot of the dashboard said no one publishes spending project by project. For two projects in our ledger that was wrong. CDOT posts a monthly dashboard for each of their construction contracts, and each one prints what has been paid to the contractor to date. For Floyd Hill’s four contracts, CDOT’s April 2026 dashboards report $241.38M paid of $678.15M. For Segment 5’s three, its September 2026 dashboard reports $158.79M paid of $214.52M. Both totals are our sums of CDOT’s figures, with the arithmetic shown. They are payments on those contracts, not what either project has cost in all: nobody publishes that. We found the dashboards on September 24 and 25, while reading CDOT’s project pages again.corrected
- Sep 25 · North I-25 Segment 5 showed a total of about $210M with no source we could point to. It now shows $214.52M, from CDOT’s own dashboard. The old figure came from a contract listing whose address we had not recorded, so no reader could check it, and neither could we. CDOT’s September 2026 dashboard for the segment prints the current value of its three construction contracts: $30.49M + $97.04M + $86.99M = $214.52M. That sum is ours. The three bid amounts it also prints add to $212.76M. The first contract grew from $28.73M to $30.49M, while the same document says there have been no change orders; we have asked about that. The design contract has no amounts on the dashboard, so it is in neither figure. We found it on September 25.corrected
- Sep 25 · Follow Your Dollar added projects the state has not funded into each county’s total. Weld County showed $602M. Its funded total is $515M. Follow Your Dollar shows a total for the major projects in a reader’s county. That total added every project on our list, including capital requests the state did not fund. A request is money an agency asked for. Nobody appropriated it, so it is not money headed to a county. The card marked those projects as requested, but it still added them in. The total now counts only projects that are funded, underway, complete or halted, because their money was appropriated. Requested money is shown on its own line, as “plus $87M requested, not funded”, and is never added in. Projects has always kept the two apart. Seventeen counties change. Weld moves from $602M to $515M, Larimer from $779M to $744M, El Paso from $448M to $419M, La Plata from $109M to $99M, and Denver from $1.49B to $1.47B. In twelve counties every listed project is a request, so the total is now $0: Mesa (was $98M), Fremont ($63M), Gunnison ($46M), Arapahoe ($42M), Jefferson ($35M), Crowley ($33M), Boulder ($21M), Otero ($20M), Delta ($14M), Garfield ($12M), Las Animas ($11M) and Rio Blanco ($10M). Boulder’s $21M is the total our entry of September 24 gave, and all of it was requested money. The statewide line said 9 statewide projects worth $524M. It now says 7 worth $384M, and states the 2 requests worth $140M apart. We found it on September 25.corrected
- Sep 24 · Follow Your Dollar still showed the CU Boulder Guggenheim Geography renovation at $24M, five weeks after we corrected it to $5.0M. Follow Your Dollar lists the major projects in a reader’s county. It kept its own copy of the project list, and we did not update that copy when we corrected this project on August 17. So Boulder County’s list showed the renovation at $24M, and the county total above the list counted it. The corrected figure is $5.0M, the FY 2026-27 request in the Joint Budget Committee’s figure-setting document. Boulder County’s total there moves from $40M to $21M. The page now reads the same project list as Projects, so a correction there reaches it too. We found it on September 24, when we removed the copy.corrected
- Sep 24 · Projects said JBC staff made the capital recommendations. The Capital Development Committee made them. No figure changes. The statewide Level 1 controlled maintenance row said its enacted $103.2M was below a $109.4M staff recommendation. The panel for each requested project said JBC staff did not recommend funding it. Two rows, the School for the Deaf and the Blind’s West Hall and the Arkansas Valley living units, said JBC staff did. The Joint Budget Committee staff’s own figure-setting document for FY 2026-27 says otherwise. It lists the $109.4M as what the Office of State Planning and Budgeting requested and the Capital Development Committee recommended. It says staff does not usually make its own recommendations on these projects. The rows now name the committee, and the budget office where it made the request. The two recommended rows now date the recommendation February 2026, the date of that document, not March. We found it on September 24, when we read the document again.clarified
- Sep 24 · Two project totals on Projects had a FACT label. Both totals are our arithmetic, so their label is CALC. No figure changes. The record for the CSU Clark Building showed ≈ $136.6M with a FACT label. The record for MyUI+ showed $86.2M with a FACT label. The picture each record makes for Instagram showed the same label. FACT means an official record prints the figure. No record prints these two totals. We add parts that one document states together: $55.8M + $55.0M + $25,798,175 for CSU Clark, and $57.8M + $28.4M for MyUI+. The note above the project list said so, but the label on each record did not. Each record now shows CALC and prints its formula, and the list marks both totals CALC.corrected
- Sep 24 · The Weekly Brief of September 24 showed seven bills as changed. The change came from the wrong fiscal note. The brief can list what changed on a bill you follow, or on the bills for your ZIP code. It compares our copy of the legislature’s record from before with our copy of September 24. Many bills number their fiscal notes FN1, FN2 and so on. For those bills we read our older copy from the bill’s first note, not its latest. So seven bills showed a change that did not happen, or showed it from the wrong starting point. HB25-1112: the brief said state revenue and TABOR refunds each moved from $0 to -$91,607. The latest note in our older copy, the Second Revised note of April 22, 2025, already prints -$91,607. Neither figure moved. SB25-151: the brief said state spending moved from $144,000 to $0. The $144,000 is from the Initial note of February 13, 2025. The later note in that copy, of March 13, 2025, prints $0. Spending did not move. SB25-132: the brief said state spending, state revenue and TABOR refunds each moved from $32,645 to $32,907. Both copies hold the Final note of July 15, 2025, which prints $32,907. Nothing moved. HB25-1220: the brief said its note moved on from the Initial note. It moved on from the First Revised note. The fall of $350 in state spending was right. HB25-1316, HB25-1326 and SB25-283 each showed a new stage. Both copies already held the bill’s final note, so there was no change to show. The brief now shows 137 changed bills in that comparison, not 141. The text of every brief is unchanged. We checked the counts in the brief of September 17 again with the correct notes, and they do not move. Found on September 24, while fixing how our copy is read.corrected
- Sep 24 · The I-70 West Vail Pass project on Projects showed ≈ $200M. CDOT’s own construction page gives $325M. We showed this project at ≈ $200M. That figure came from press coverage. We set it on July 13, while two CDOT figures did not agree. CDOT’s main project page names a $164.2M first phase. Its construction page for the same project gives a construction cost of $325M, for work from August 2021 to December 2026. The project now shows $325M and cites that page, which we read on September 24. The change from $164.2M is shown as the two figures CDOT prints. CDOT does not say how the scope changed between them. The funded and underway total on the projects page moved from ≈ $5.2B to ≈ $5.3B.corrected
- Sep 24 · North I-25 Segment 6 was shown as under construction. CDOT says it was finished at the end of 2023. No figure changes. The project on Projects said design and construction were in progress, and that no opening date was known yet. CDOT’s project milestones page says the stretch from Berthoud to Fort Collins, which includes Segment 6, was finished as 2023 closed. The express lanes were to open as soon as December 15, 2023, and the grand opening was set for spring 2024. That was already true when we first published the project in July, so this is our error and not a change on the project. It now shows as complete, from 2021 to 2023. We found it on September 24, when we read every project’s source again.corrected
- Sep 24 · Four bills on Before It’s Law showed the wrong note as their first or latest fiscal note. The Sep 23 entry about SB25-283, below, said 26 bills list the same date on their first or last fiscal notes, so we could not yet check which of their notes came first or last. We have now read every note of those 26 bills and put each bill’s notes in order by the date each note prints. For 22 bills the page was right. For four it was not. HB26-1046: the page showed its first estimate as $0 in state spending and $1,198,764 in state revenue, from the First Revised note of April 13, 2026, and said the estimate never moved. The bill’s first note is the Initial note of February 3, 2026. It prints $228,263 in state spending, $228,000 in state revenue and 1.5 staff. The page now shows the spending estimate was amended to zero. HB25-1220: the page showed its latest estimate as $112,089, from a note of March 18, 2025, and said the estimate never moved. Its latest note is dated June 4, 2025 and prints $111,739, so the estimate fell. HB25-1112 and SB25-151: the page showed notes of April 22, 2025 and March 13, 2025 as their latest. Their latest notes are dated July 1, 2025 and August 5, 2025. The figures are the same. The three 2025 bills now also show how they ended: HB25-1220 was vetoed, and the other two were signed into law. The page’s totals moved with them. Bills whose estimate never moved went from 2,596 to 2,594. Bills whose estimate fell went from 548 to 549, and bills amended to zero from 177 to 178. Down now beats up by 2.1 to 1, not 2.0. Bills whose note says how they ended went from 1,203 to 1,206. The cause is the one in that entry: the legislature’s bill page lists these notes with the same date, and we picked the notes we keep from that list. Two bills also list a memorandum about one amendment. We now read the date a memorandum prints on its own DATE line, so it can be put in order too. Found by reading the 47 notes we did not have, on September 24.corrected
- Sep 24 · Two Weekly Briefs said Colorado had not published its unemployment rate for June, July or August. It had published June and July. Not a figure moving — a claim about the record that was wrong. The briefs of September 10 and 17 said Colorado’s newest published month was May, and that June, July and August were not late because “the state has not published them.” The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment published its rate for June on July 17, for July on August 21 and for August on September 18. The rate this site shows for Colorado still stops at May, because the state data file it reads had not been updated past May, and the two briefs took that file for everything the state had published. Both briefs now say what the state had published, with a dated note. No figure on this site changed.corrected
- Sep 23 · The methodology page said ratings are published as totals. The notice on the form says no rating and no total is published, and the form is right. Not a figure moving — a promise that disagreed with itself. The full disclosure on the methodology page said ratings and comments “are published only as totals, never as individual quotations”. The notice beside the rating form says the opposite, and so do our own rules for reader input: a rating is stored with no identifier and counted into a total that the people who govern this place can see, but no rating and no total is published on this site, and a comment is never published on it. The notice on the form was reworded earlier; the methodology page was not, so the two said different things about the same rating. The methodology page now says what the form says, including the one thing we may publish: summaries of what residents tell us, in our own words, never anybody’s rating or comment and never a count, average or distribution. The Sep 3 entry below stays as written, because it is the record of what we said that day.corrected
- Sep 23 · One bill on Before It’s Law showed its second fiscal note as its first. SB25-283 has three fiscal notes. The page showed its first estimate as $66,958,500, and said the estimate never moved. That figure is from the First Revised note, dated April 11, 2025. The bill’s first note is the Initial note, dated April 6, 2025, and it prints $59,980,000. The page now shows $59,980,000 first and $66,958,500 in the Final note of June 11, 2025, so the estimate rose. How it happened: the legislature’s bill page lists all three notes with the same date, 06/11/2025. We keep two notes per bill, and we picked them from that list. The Initial note was not one of them, so it was never read. The two notes we did read were put in the right order, because each note prints its own date. Now, when every note is on hand, we pick the first and last note by the date each note prints. The list’s date and label are not used for this, and neither is the file number. Twenty-six other bills list tied dates at their first or last note. For them the notes that would settle the order are not on hand, so they are not checked yet and stay as published. Found while refreshing the fiscal notes on September 23.corrected
- Sep 21 · The county mill levy was described as one line of a property tax bill. On an Arapahoe County bill it is two. Not a figure moving — a description of how a figure prints elsewhere. Arapahoe County's 2025 county mill levy stays 16.959, FACT, from the State's own levy register (Colorado OIT / DOLA, PropTaxMap). An outside reader found the county assessor's own sheet showing a different number, and the reconciliation is exact. The State register carries Arapahoe County as a single taxing authority: general 15.821 + abatement 0.138 + special 1.000 = 16.959. The county assessor's own sheet prints the same money as two authority lines — a county line of 15.959 (general plus abatement, folded together) and a separate developmental-disability line of 1.000, which add to the same 16.959. So the State folds the county's developmental-disability mill into the county line; the county prints it separately, which is what a taxpayer actually sees on the bill. Our description used to call the county levy “ONE LINE of a property tax bill, never the whole” — true of most counties, and not true of Arapahoe's own bill. The description on all 64 counties now says the county total can itself combine more than one authority, so a county's own bill may print it as more than one line; Arapahoe's own entry names its own split by name. This is established for Arapahoe alone. It is not a claim that any other county's levy is printed the same way.clarified
- Sep 15 · The CDOT weekly capture has a gap: no snapshot exists for 25 August. Not a figure moving — a disclosure of a limit in the data. CDOT serves its payee-level expenditure feed on a rolling window with no archive of its own, so this site keeps a copy each week, and a week we do not have is gone for good. We have copies from 4, 11 and 18 August, then 1 and 8 September: none for 25 August. No published figure on this site is computed across that missing week. Any figure that would span it shows PENDING, with this gap named as the reason.disclosed
- Sep 5 · Four project rows said no document states their figure. Two of those documents were already in our own archive. On 18 August we logged that seven project rows cited a document that does not state their figure, and that four of the seven “could not be fixed, so they were re-graded instead”. All four are fixed today. The documents that state them existed the whole time. Capitol Complex Renovation, ≈ $216.7M. The Joint Budget Committee’s FY 2026-27 capital figure-setting document states it on page 15: “The total cost of the project is currently estimated at $216.7 million, with an unfunded $31.7 million General Fund cost.” CSU Clark Building, ≈ $136.6M. Page 8 of the same document states all three parts together — $55.8M of earlier Capital Construction Fund appropriations, $55.0M of the university’s own institutional funds, and the $25,798,175 final phase the Long Bill enacted. The row now prints that addition. MyUI+, $86.2M, and DRIVES, $93.3M. Both come from the Legislative Council Staff memorandum on major IT capital construction projects, written for the Joint Technology Committee in December 2022. It says on page 4 that the Department of Revenue “was appropriated a total of $93.3 million for the project”, and MyUI+’s $57.8M and $28.4M sit in two consecutive sentences on page 8. No figure on this site changes. All four amounts are what they were. What changes is that each one now names a document that says so, with the page, and the two we add up print the addition. The four rows move from confidence C back to B: B here means an official record that may lag, or that restates a figure it did not originate, which is what a 2022 memorandum and a staff estimate are. The part worth publishing is what “no source states it” really meant. One of the two documents was already in our own archive, cited by thirty other rows on the same page, and nobody had read past its tables. The other answered on the first request, at the address this site had recorded for it since July. A check now carries each of the four sentences with its page, and fails if the published amount, the citation or the quotation drifts off the other two.corrected
- Sep 5 · The Sep 3 entry said the page no longer states the road safety split in prose, and three other places still did. The Sep 3 correction two rows down was about one paragraph on What you pay to register a car and closed by saying “the page no longer states a split in prose at all: it derives the sentence from the statutory schedule.” That was true of that one paragraph. The fee table’s own destination cell, an earlier plain-English paragraph higher on the same page, the receipt’s client-side calculator, and the road safety surcharge’s own definition on Ask WB all still read “60% state, 22% counties, 18% towns” as a flat, present-tense fact — three days after the entry above said the sentence was fixed. No figure changed and no figure was wrong; this is the same shape as the Sep 4 entry above it, found the same way: a fix that reached one surface and stopped. The destination string is now built from the same statutory schedule the corrected paragraph already used — C.R.S. 43-4-205(6)(b) at 60/22/18 before 1 September 2025, C.R.S. 43-4-205(6.3)(b)(I) (Senate Bill 25-258) at 56/24/20 from that day — so all four surfaces read one derivation instead of four typed copies, and a selftest now asserts the three shares sum to 100 and match the schedule in force. Found by a page-by-page audit of the site’s own public copy.corrected
- Sep 4 · Three pages divided one budget by three different populations, and the entry below said we had already fixed it. On 5 August we logged the correction two rows down: the $100 receipt had been dividing by an unsourced “5.99M residents (est.)”, and we wrote that “every per-resident figure is now on that single Census estimate”. That was true of one page. The fix reached the dashboard and stopped there. Until today Follow Your Dollar published ≈ $8,275 per resident and the worked example on the methodology page published ≈ $8,280, both still on the withdrawn population, while the dashboard published ≈ $8,243. One quantity, three answers, on three pages a reader can open side by side. Follow Your Dollar also multiplies that figure by a county population to draw its population-share benchmark, so every one of the 64 county benchmarks was about 0.4 percent high. The figure is ≈ $8,243. That is $49,560,763,693 of FY 2026-27 appropriations over 6,012,561 Colorado residents — the U.S. Census Bureau’s Vintage 2025 estimate for 1 July 2025, and the same count the incarceration rate on this site divides by. Neither the budget nor the population moved. What changed is that all three pages now read them instead of remembering them. The part worth publishing is why nothing caught it. Our checks proved the dashboard’s figure against the pipeline on every run, and never asked whether any other page agreed with it — so a correction we had published, and believed, was false on two of the three pages it covered. Every surface that prints this figure or its denominator is now written from one derivation, and the check fails if any of those pages prints either withdrawn number anywhere: inside a figure, or in the sentence beside it.corrected
- Sep 3 · The registration page said the road safety surcharge splits 60/22/18. For ten of the twelve months printed beside it, it did not. On What you pay to register a car we wrote that statute splits the Highway Users Tax Fund “60 percent to state highways, 22 percent to counties and 18 percent to towns and cities”, and printed the FY2026 figures underneath it. Senate Bill 25-258 changed that split on 1 September 2025 — to 56 percent, 24 percent and 20 percent, for any registration period beginning on or after that day and before 1 September 2027. Ten of the twelve months behind the FY2026 total are on the new split and two are on the old one, so the sentence above them was true of neither year as printed. No figure changed and no figure was wrong. The Treasurer’s workbook reconciles to the cent, and it still does. What was wrong is what we told a reader those figures were a share of: the FY2026 county share of $50,971,605.00 is $3,491,735.38 more than 22 percent of the collection beside it, and the state highway share is $6,983,471.33 less than 60 percent of it. Nothing here could have caught it, and that is the part worth keeping. Our check on this workbook asserted that the three distribution rows add up to the collection. They do — on either split, because moving money between the parts leaves the whole alone. A sum is not a proportion, and only the second one can see a redistribution. The Treasury’s own rows are still labeled 60% State Highway, 22% County and 18% City while carrying the new percentages, so the labels agreed with our sentence and disagreed with their own figures. Every distribution row is now checked every run against the share the statute in force actually puts it on, month by month, and a year that straddles the change says so beside its own total. The page no longer states a split in prose at all: it derives the sentence from the statutory schedule, so it will follow the law back when this window closes in September 2027. Found while writing the Weekly Brief.corrected
- Aug 27 · A chip on the Education page used a label the Honesty Framework does not have. The infant care price on Education carried a chip reading CCAoA. Every other chip on this site answers one question: how do we know this? FACT when a publisher states it, CALC when we did arithmetic and show it, PENDING when we will not guess. That one answered a different question — who published it. The figure is unchanged at $20,978, and so is its source. It comes from Child Care Aware of America, a national nonprofit rather than a government body, and the tile has always said so in words underneath. What was wrong is where that belonged. A reader learns one small piece of grammar on this site, and a chip that answers a different question from every other chip takes it away from them. It was also a label defined nowhere. Not on the Honesty Framework (opens in a new tab) page, not in the methodology register — though our own rule is that any new chip is defined on both, in the same ship as the chip. The chip now reads FACT, which is what our dataset has labeled this observation all along, and the nonprofit’s name stays where it was.corrected
- Aug 24 · Four blank TABOR years are filled, and a fifth figure was on the wrong basis. — Four fiscal years on Cost of Living showed a dashed empty box where a refund belonged: FY 2018-19, FY 2020-21, FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24. The page said why — the year’s own document had not been read. It has now. The State Auditor publishes a Schedule of TABOR Revenue for every fiscal year, and all four are read: $428,335,506, $453,572,197, $3,568,639,070 and $1,371,507,859. Reading them turned up a figure we had already published on the wrong basis. These schedules print two numbers that look alike and are not. One is the refund arising from that year’s surplus. The other is a running total of everything still owed from earlier years as well. Our chart says it shows the first — “TABOR refund by surplus fiscal year” — and for FY 2021-22 it was showing the second. That bar read $3,868,404,442. Of that, $133,769,928 was money left over from the 2015, 2018, 2019 and 2021 surpluses. The FY 2022 surplus itself was $3,734,634,514, and that is what the bar reads now. It is still the largest refund in the series and still went out as the S.B. 22-233 checks of $750 per single filer and $1,500 per joint return; what changed is that the figure now answers the question the chart asks. FY 2024-25 keeps its $293,303,186. The subtraction there is a different thing — prior-year over-refunds set against this surplus under state law, not another year’s money. Why we had it wrong. Two years were written out by hand, each choosing which of the two numbers to take. One place now makes that choice for every year, and the build refuses to ship a year whose two figures do not add up between them.corrected
- Aug 24 · We now count which broad region you are reading from — Until today the only place we recorded was the country. We now also record a broad region: at its finest a group of counties, more often a whole state, and outside the country nothing but that. How it works, because this one is worth stating plainly. When a page loads, your browser asks our own server one small question. The answer is that region and nothing else. The closer location your network reports is read where your request first reaches us, and thrown away in the same breath. It never reaches the page, it is never written down, and nothing about it is kept between one page and the next. No cookie, no storage, and nothing you typed. This is the only request this site makes on your behalf that you did not ask for. We would rather say so than have you find it. The methodology page carries the full wording.disclosed
- Aug 23 · Our comparison bars were drawn too short — Each bar takes its length from its own percentage. This is the chart comparing Colorado’s spending mix with the 50-state average. The number beside each bar sat in the same box and could not shrink. So the bar gave up room to the number. The longer the bar, the worse it got. Colorado’s Medicaid bar should fill 85% of its track. On a wide screen it filled 75.7%. On a phone it collapsed to a stub. No percentage on this page changed, and none was wrong. What was wrong is that the picture disagreed with the figures beside it. A reader comparing two bars by eye was comparing the wrong lengths. Every bar now draws the length its own figure sets, at every screen width. The same repair fixed the chart on a phone. There the value boxes had overlapped each other, and the “All states” column ran off the side of the screen.corrected
- Aug 22 · We now count a few interactions, not just page views — Since Aug 22 we count a few interactions, not just page views. What is counted: when a citation is followed out to its publisher, we record the publisher’s web address; when the Honesty Framework is opened, which page it was opened from; when a data table is opened, which table; and on the one prototype page that plays questions one at a time, which question was shown and which controls were used. What is not: nothing you type, no cookie, no identifier, and nothing that says which reader did any of it — these are counts, not records of people. Details in the methodologydisclosed
- Aug 22 · Privacy charter, extended and pre-registered — Nothing new is collected today. Two changes to what we say, not to what we measure. First, the full traffic disclosure now appears on every locale, in the same words. It had been written out in detail on two of them and in a single line on the rest — the same policy, unevenly stated. Second, we have written down the rules for something we plan to add: counting interactions as well as page views, so we can see which sources get followed and which controls get used. Three rules are settled before any of it ships. Every event has a name from a fixed list. Nothing you type is ever recorded — not a ZIP code, not a search, not the words of a comment. Location stays coarse, a region or a state, never an address. We are publishing those rules now so they can be read before the counting starts rather than after, and a check in our build refuses to let the page claim otherwise in either direction. Details in the methodologydisclosed
- Aug 22 · The Honesty Framework did not allow for a forecast, and Cost of Living publishes three. Nothing published changed, and no figure moved. What changed is the page that exists to explain the labels. The framework said a blank labeled PENDING “beats an estimate every time” and, of NOT PUBLISHED, that “we never fill it with an estimate.” Both rules are about our estimates and neither bends. But the TABOR section on Cost of Living shows three fiscal years — FY 2025-26, FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 — as outlined bars marked “estimate”, because Legislative Council Staff forecast the refund and publish the figures. Quoting a publisher’s own forecast is not the same act as inventing a number, and the site had been doing the first while its framework page described only the second. A reader clicking from one of those bars to the page meant to explain it met a page that read as forbidding it. The framework now defines the state, at The forecasts: a publisher’s forecast may be published, with their name on it, marked as a forecast everywhere it appears, never added to a certified figure, and superseded through this log when the certified figure arrives. The methodology page says the same. Also corrected here: this log said it held 24 entries and held 25. It now says 26, and a check fails the build if the two ever disagree again.corrected
- Aug 21 · The registration calculator was a fee short for electric vehicles. The “work out your own bill” calculator on What you pay to register a car charged electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles one extra fee: the road usage fee. The law charges two. The second is the Electric Vehicle Fee — $50 when it was created in 2013, indexed to inflation since, and $63.05 this year on the DMV’s own fee page. The law’s words about the road usage fee are “in addition to ... the fee imposed by subsection (25)(a)”, and the law defines “electric motor vehicle” to cover plug-in hybrids too. So every total the calculator produced for an electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle was $63.05 short, from the day the page shipped on 8 August until today. The worked receipt on the page is a gasoline SUV, so the printed example was never wrong, and no figure in our dataset changed. The calculator now charges both fees, to both fuel types. Why our own check missed it. The build refuses to ship unless every row of the DMV’s fee list is accounted for — that check exists precisely to catch an omitted line. The row “Electric Vehicle Fees” was accounted for. It was mapped to the one fee we carried, while the section behind it listed two. A row that names a section rather than a single fee can hide a second charge inside a check that reads clean. The mapping now names both, and the build fails if either goes missing. A calculator that understates a bill is exactly the kind of error this log exists forcorrected
- Aug 19 · The school funding figure cited a document written before the bill passed. This page published Total Program funding for FY 2025-26 as $10,035,615,918, tagged FACT, credited to HB25-1320, the School Finance Act. That figure is real. It is not the enacted one. It is Legislative Council Staff’s estimate from the initial fiscal note of 3 April 2025. That note says of itself that it “reflects the introduced bill”. The Governor signed the act seven weeks later. We were citing a projection of a bill on a line that says enacted. The figure now reads $10,031,606,090. That is the statewide total in the staff’s own district run, dated 9 June 2025. That is their district-by-district table of school funding, as appropriated in HB25-1320 and SB25-315. The enacted act states two floors, and only one of them applies. Section 16 sets the same $10,031,606,090. Section 15 sets $10,036,070,748, and it never came into force. The final fiscal note says so in its own words. Senate Bill 25-315 took effect on 23 May 2025. So Section 16 took effect, and Section 15 did not. The arithmetic on this page now works. Funding per pupil beside it reads $11,858. The new total divided by the 845,943 funded pupils that same document counts gives $11,858. The old total over its own pupil count gives $11,852. We had a total and a per-pupil figure from two stages of one bill, and neither divided into the other. FY 2024-25 moved too, and it got stronger. It read $9,777,300,000 and was a calculation: a memo’s rounded “about $10.03 billion” minus its stated $252.7M increase. Both fiscal notes print the actual figure, $9,778,950,899. It is now a sourced fact rather than a subtraction, $1.65M higher. What you see on the tile moves by a hundredth of a billion. It read $10.04B and now reads $10.03B. FY 2024-25 still rounds to $9.78B, and the change against last year is still +2.6%. The visible repair is small. The reason for it is not. A citation is the promise that you can check us, and this one sent you to a document that does not hold the number. Every document behind these figures is now kept in our own archive, so this stays checkable if one is taken downcorrected
- Aug 18 · Seven projects cited a document that does not state their figure. No project figure changes. Every row in the project ledger names the source its number comes from. Seven named the wrong one. All seven pointed at HB26-1410, the enacted Long Bill — and that act does not contain those figures. Two of them are impossible on their face. The Capitol Complex row published ≈$216.7M against an act whose entire capital construction section is $160,355,815. The MyUI+ row published $86.2M against an act whose entire information-technology section is $32,325,503. A reader who followed either citation to check the number would have landed on a document a third to a quarter of its size. Three are fixed outright. The CMHIP, CO School for the Deaf & Blind and Arkansas Valley rows do have a source that states their figure. It is the Joint Budget Committee’s capital figure-setting document, already listed on each row as a second source. It is now the first one, and the Long Bill citation is gone. Four could not be fixed, so they were re-graded instead. Capitol Complex, CSU Clark Building, MyUI+ and DRIVES move from confidence A and B to C. On this site A means strongly sourced and C means weak, and a figure whose source we cannot name is not strongly sourced. The numbers themselves may well be right. The Clark Building row even breaks its own total down into $55.8M of Capital Construction Fund, $55.0M institutional and a $25.8M final phase, which adds up exactly. But we cannot yet point you at the document that says so. Confidence grades are display only here; no total on this page is calculated from them, so nothing moved. We are logging this because a citation is a promise that you can check our work. Seven of ours could not be checked, and three of those pointed at a number that was not merely absent from the cited document but different from the one it prints. A check now compares every ledger row against the source it names, and prints the ones that still cannot be matchedcorrected
- Aug 18 · “Budget gap closed — $1.2B”, and five of the six figures beside it. This page carried a tile reading $1.2B, under the words “shortfall balanced in the FY27 package”. Beside it sat a card of six FY27 pressure points. All seven were tagged FACT. None of them named a source. So we went to the document they were said to come from. It is the Joint Budget Committee’s own Budget Package & Long Bill Narrative, dated April 7, 2026. Five of the seven claims are not in it. We also read the FY 2026-27 Summary Tables and the FY 2026-27 Appropriations Report. None of the three states a $1.2 billion budget gap, in any wording. The narrative never names a headline shortfall at all. What it describes is different, and is now what the tile says. House Bill 26-1363 cut the General Fund reserve requirement from 15.0% to 13.0% for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27. The budget package balances to that reduced requirement. Two of the old figures survived exactly and are still here. One is the reserve ending $340.1M below the old 15% rule. The other is the $213.3M estimated to come from the Kids Matter Account. One was close to a real number but was not it. We published Medicaid provider rate reductions at −$270M. The narrative’s provider-rate line is −$288,969,529. The 2.0% across-the-board cut inside it is $222,022,950. Neither is $270M. Three do not appear at all. Those are “cuts across smaller departments −$150M” and “employee & contractor compensation savings −$120M”. The third is “Medicaid cost growth ~9% vs 3.2%/yr”. The card now carries six figures the narrative does state. Each one is read from the document rather than typed. Three are reconciled against a total the JBC prints itself. No other figure on this page changed. The budget, the General Fund, the receipt and the project ledger are untouched. We are logging this at length because the failure was not arithmetic. It was a source that nobody had checked, on figures that looked exactly like the checked ones beside themcorrected
- Aug 17 · One project in the ledger was two years of money added together. The CU Boulder Guggenheim Geography renovation was published at ≈ $24.2M. That is not what the state was asked for in this budget year. The Joint Budget Committee’s figure-setting document puts the FY 2026-27 request at $5,022,196, and a further $19,200,888 in a separate column for FY 2027-28. Those two add to $24,223,084, which is the figure we had. Every other requested project on this page is one year of money, so this row was on a different basis from the twenty-nine beside it and nothing said so. It now reads $5.0M, the later year is stated on the project’s own page instead of being folded in, and the row’s grade moves from B to A because the figure now comes from the primary document rather than a summary of it. The requested-money total below the ledger moves with it, from ≈ $0.8B to ≈ $0.7B. No funded figure changes: requested money has never entered the headline, which is the whole reason the two are kept apart. We found it while building a check that reads that document row by row — the other twenty-nine matched it to the dollar, and this one did notcorrected
- Aug 17 · Nine bills on Before It’s Law had no figure where the note printed one. A fiscal note is Legislative Council Staff’s estimate of what a bill would cost. We read that estimate off the note’s State Expenditures row and stopped there. Colorado’s older notes often leave that row empty. They print the money one line below it, on the fund it comes out of. HB16-1022 is the plainest case. Its note shows nothing on the State Expenditures line and $243.2 million on the General Fund line beneath it. We published “Row printed, no figure”. We now read that line too. Nine bills gain a figure: HB16-1022, HB16-1075, HB16-1105, HB16-1117, HB16-1422, HB17-1361, SB16-023, SB16-064 and SB17-029. No figure changed to a different figure. Twelve of the sixteen notes are confirmed to the dollar by the note’s own “Appropriation Required” sentence, written elsewhere in the same document. The counts above the table move with them. Bills whose estimate can be compared go from 3,584 to 3,592, and “down beats up” goes from about 2.1 to 1 to 2.0 to 1. What we will not do is add up a block we cannot read honestly. Some notes move money between funds rather than spend it, so the lines cancel to zero. Publishing that zero as the cost of a bill would be inventing a number. Those blocks stay blank, and each one now records whycorrected
- Aug 14 · The citation under the Corrections budget tile — no figure changes. The tile's $1.19B FY 2025-26 total funds figure linked to the JBC's Corrections staff briefing PDF. That is not where the figure comes from. It comes from the FY 2025-26 Appropriations Report, exactly as this page's own detail table beneath it already states. This page also explains that the briefing and the Appropriations Report can print different totals for the same year — the FY 2024-25 restatement below is one example, off by $1.7M. So a reader clicking the link to check $1.19B landed on a document that could show a different number from the one they were checking. The link now points at the Appropriations Report, and its label reads “JBC Appropriations Report” rather than “JBC briefing”, so the label matches what it links to. $1.19B, the +19.2% change, and the ≈2.5% share are all unchangedclarified
- Aug 11 · Four 2024 offense counts on this page moved, because the Bureau of Investigation revised them. Murder 266 → 267, non-consensual sex offenses 6,250 → 6,274, assault 21,277 → 21,292, robbery 3,794 → 3,823. The gap column against the CDPS extract moved with them, by a tenth of a point in each case. The divergence those rows exist to show is unchanged. Nobody got anything wrong. CBI revises its crime statistics nightly. Our policy is that the latest vintage wins. These numbers are what it published when we last read it. It is logged because a published figure changed and the page did not otherwise say these figures move. A number that changes quietly is what this log is for, whether or not anyone erredrefreshed
- Aug 10 · The assessment rate on Follow Your Dollar was a year out of step with the mill levies beside it. Part C multiplied tax year 2025 mill levies by the tax year 2026 assessment rate. Colorado assesses a home twice, and the two rates behaved differently. The school rate is 7.05% in both years, so half the calculation was right. The local government rate is 6.8% in 2026 and 6.25% in 2025. So the local half of every estimate ran 8.8% high. That is about $89 on the county line of a $600,000 home in Jefferson County. Now 6.25%, paired with the 2025 levies it belongs to, and the whole section is labeled tax year 2025. Why it took sourcing rather than a one-line fix. House Bill 24B-1001 did not set a number. It set a rule: 6.25% if statewide value growth was at or below 5%, and 6.15% if above. Both of the Division of Property Taxation’s own rate pages return a server error where the answer should be. The determination is printed in the Division’s 2025 Annual Report: the State Board certified growth of 4.27%. Our check now re-applies that rule rather than trusting the transcription, so the wrong branch cannot be typed in unnoticed. No mill levy changed and no county figure changedcorrected
- Aug 8 · The T-REX delivery record, on Still Promised and Floyd Hill. Both pages said the project “finished 3.2% under budget and 22 months ahead of schedule in December 2006”. Three things were wrong with that sentence and none of them was the arithmetic. The date: RTD's own record says the line opened 17 November 2006. The denominator. The 3.2% is $39 million against the $1.23 billion design-build contract price. It is not against the $1.67 billion program budget printed in the same sentence, where the same $39M is 2.3%. A percentage sitting beside a budget it was not measured against reads the obvious way. A reader is entitled to read it that way. The tense. Our only source was an FHWA Public Roads article dated September/October 2001, five years before the project finished. It states what the winning team agreed to when it bid, and it cannot state what was delivered. Both pages now say so. The direction is properly sourced for the first time: RTD publishes that the line opened ahead of schedule and under budget. Nobody publishes the delivered size, so we no longer imply one. Found while re-probing our own sources: the FHWA link had also stopped serving the article entirelyrevised
- Aug 8 · How the $13.3–16.5 billion transit estimate is graded — no figure changes. The 2014 Advanced Guideway System capital range was published as CDOT's own and graded A. CDOT publishes only a summary of that study, and the report itself is available by records request. That summary does not print that range. It prints a different pair instead, for a bigger system. Those are $16.5B from DIA to Eagle and $13.6B from Fort Collins to Pueblo, inside a $30 billion statewide total. So one of our two numbers appears on CDOT's page attached to a different corridor. That is how a figure gets quietly mis-cited. The range itself is right, and it covers the phase we name: I-70/C-470 near Golden to Eagle County Regional Airport. But it reaches us through reporting published at the time of the study's release, which is grade B. Regraded, with the source named. The $1–3 billion private-financing ceiling is CDOT's own. So is the “not financially feasible” finding. Both stay grade A. The two multiples against Floyd Hill's cost inherit the weaker grade. Every calculation here inherits from its worst inputregraded
- Aug 5 · The source line under the headline — no figure changes. It cited the JBC FY 2026-27 Summary Tables beside the Long Bill. Those tables state their own basis in their opening paragraph. They reflect the bill “as introduced in the House”, which is a proposal. After the two corrections below, no figure on this page comes from them. Citing a proposal on a page of enacted figures is a real error. A reader has every right to be annoyed about it. It is gone. The line now names the enacted act and its chapter law. The refresh date was also stale by a monthclarified
- Aug 5 · The change against last year, on both budget tiles. The headline tile said the budget was up +3.9% and the General Fund up +1.5%. Both came from the Joint Budget Committee's summary tables. Those tables say of themselves that they reflect the Long Bill “as introduced in the House”. Those tables compare a proposed $49,598,197,293 against an adjusted $47,727,166,661. Neither of those is the enacted $49,560,763,693 the tile displays. The percentages were arithmetically correct and described a different pair of numbers from the one shown above them. They now read +6.4% and +2.7%, comparing this enacted Long Bill against the last enacted Long Bill. That is one act against the same act a year earlier. Both are parsed from the enacted text and reconciled against the totals the acts print for themselves. The General Fund comparison needed care. The FY 2025-26 act prints General Fund Exempt as a column of its own, and this one folds it into General Fund. Comparing the printed columns would have shown the General Fund falling 24.6% in a year it roserevised
- Aug 5 · Shown, not controlled — the “What lawmakers actually control” split read ≈ $31.8B (64.2%) appropriated against ≈ $17.7B (35.8%) informational. Read off the footnotes the bill prints beneath its own statewide total. On that reading the informational “(I)” money is $17,988,473,956 and the controlled share $31,572,289,737 — 63.7% / 36.3%. A difference of about $246M, and every figure on the bar now comes from the act's own arithmetic. We also added the caveat this figure most needs: the share is not comparable year to year. The identical footnotes in the FY 2025-26 Long Bill give 12.8%. This act marks nearly all federal funds “(I)”, where its predecessor marked about a quarter of themrevised
- Aug 5 · “17 agencies” in the $100 receipt — the grouped row read “All other departments · 17 agencies”. Colorado has 23 departments and the receipt names seven, so the group is 16. No money moved: the grouped total of $7.10B was right, and so was every share. Only the count of departments behind it was wrongfixed
- Aug 5 · Per-resident figures — the receipt divided by “5.99M residents (est.)”. That population appeared in no source we publish. It also disagreed with the 6,012,561 the incarceration rate on this same page divides by. Every per-resident figure is now on that single Census estimate, named on the page, so the two cannot drift apart. The total moved from $8,275 to $8,243 and each department row moved by a few dollars. The budget itself is unchangedrevised
- Aug 4 · How the imprisonment-rate series was described — no figure changes. The note beneath this chart said each BJS release “prints two years side by side”. It went on: “consecutive releases overlap by one year and every overlapping year is read twice from two separate publications.” That reads as though all ten years were checked against a second document. They were not. The three biennial PDFs partition their years: 2014-15, then 2016-17, then 2018-19, with nothing bridging them. So only 2021 and 2022 are printed by two releases. The other eight years have exactly one source. The table beneath the note had it right all along, naming a single release for eight rows. The page contradicted itself, and the note was the part that was wrong. The wording now states which years were cross-checked and which were not. The table column is headed Read from rather than Confirmed by. Every rate on this chart is unchanged. We are logging it because overstating how thoroughly a figure was checked is a claim about our own work. That is what this log exists forclarified
- Aug 2 · Corrections General Fund, FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25. The General Fund column showed $1,005,212,589 for FY 2023-24 and nothing at all for FY 2024-25. It now shows $510,212,589 and $750,267,875. Total funds are unchanged in both years. The state publishes this budget two ways. The version we had been using reports those two years before the HB24-1466 refinance. That refinance swapped roughly $495M of state General Fund onto federal pandemic-recovery money. It later switched back. Both versions state the same total; only the split differs. We now take the whole series from the one document that shows the swap. Every row's fund lines then add up to the total printed beside them in that same document. A flat General Fund line across those years was misleading. It made the state look like it kept paying for prisons out of its own pocket. For two years it largely did notrevised
- Aug 2 · Corrections appropriation, FY 2024-25 — we published $1,174,720,793. The correct figure is $1,173,002,813, a revision of $1,717,980 (0.15%). The state publishes this appropriation in two separate JBC series. They agree to the dollar on the other six years we show. We had spotted the disagreement and were showing the older figure, because the newer briefing contradicted its own arithmetic. A third document resolves it. Two consecutive Appropriations Reports state this year, both add up, and the later one restates it downward. The briefing had updated its total and left its fund lines stale. Our rule was right and our reading of it was too narrow. We compared vintages within one series instead of across both. The rule now runs across both. That changed this one figure and no other. The General Fund figure for that year is withdrawn rather than restated. The two series present the HB24-1466 refinance differently, so it is not comparable with the years either side of it. We would rather show nothing than a number that cannot be read against its neighborsrevised
- Aug 1 · Privacy charter — this site previously said “no analytics.” We added aggregate, cookieless, first-party page-view counting to watch for anomalies and learn what to improve. No cookies, no identifiers, and nothing you type is ever included. Disclosed here before the first count was collected; details in the methodologydisclosed
- Jul 13 · I-70 Vail Pass — CDOT's project page says $164.2M; CDOT press materials say $200–250M. Total updated to ≈ $200M while the two official figures are reconciledrevised
- Jul 12 · Central Maintenance Level 1 — request-stage figure replaced with the enacted appropriation of $103.2M once we verified it against HB26-1410 as passedrevised
- Jul 12 · HRWorks — reclassified from Underway to Halted after program termination was confirmed in legislative staff recordsrestated
- Jul 11 · I-25 South Gap — a paid-to-date figure briefly appeared on the wrong project's vendor table. Caught in internal review and fixed the same dayfixed