Correction: percentages printed in the 2024 WEC audit report are incorrect For the five reported cases, the report prints 0.0000009%. Calculating a percentage from its stated counts gives 0.0000892% : (5 / 5,604,670) × 100. Civic Result Maps previously repeated the printed value; we retain it as a source quotation, not the correct percentage. Read WEC report, page 10 .
The WEC report's printed percentages are incorrect conversions of its stated ratios. The corrected five-case percentage is about 100 times the printed value and remains below the report's stated one-in-500,000 benchmark. This is a reporting/math-label error, not a newly discovered candidate-vote error; it does not change WEC's separately defined equipment-only rate of 0%.
Benchmark, human-error count, and audit scope The report's stated benchmark of one error in 500,000 ballot positions equals 0.0002% , not 0.00002% (page 9) or 0.000002% (page 10). WEC report, pages 9–10 .
WEC separately reports 593 human/procedural errors (0.011%). WEC's human-error category includes audit-process mistakes and election-administration issues. The 593 count is not a count of incorrectly tabulated presidential votes. WEC report, pages 11–12 .
The four selected audit contests were President and Vice President, U.S. House, Wisconsin Assembly, District Attorney. U.S. Senate was not one of the four selected audit contests. This audit does not directly validate Civic Result Maps' President-versus-Senate advisory comparisons. WEC report, page 5 .
Appendix B provides selected reporting units, auditable equipment, and ballots audited. The source report gives statewide findings and aggregate/error discussion, not a per-reporting-unit discrepancy outcome table.
Civic Result Maps independent arithmetic check; not a WEC-issued correction. The original report is unchanged.
Review view Overview Evidence Tools Screening Indicators Methodology Overview Status, readiness, top flags, and next actions Evidence Tools Readiness gaps and flag explainability Screening Charts, ticket-splitting proxy, and caveats Indicators Search, filter, and inspect advisory rows Methodology How each advisory flag is calculated
Flagged counties 67 Flagged areas 126 Indicators 187 Highest severity 4.28 Review readiness Strong review support Start here before interpreting advisory flags. The score measures source-backed review support, not risk or proof.
Readiness 90% 0 blockers
Top advisory flags Review these first
! Average down-ballot difference Forest County - High review priority ! Vote-share pattern Forest County - High review priority ! Average down-ballot difference Price County - High review priority
Highest-impact gaps Collect or verify next
Turnout denominator Wisconsin turnout has registered-voter denominators from official EAC fallback data, while statewide ward-level registered-voter denominators and row-level ballot-mode inputs remain unavailable from the WEC ward workbook.
Historical baselines The historical official-result backfill has not been loaded for this state yet.
Next best actions Choose a focused workspace
Evidence ToolsExplain readiness, source gaps, and top flags. IndicatorsSearch, filter, and inspect advisory rows. ScreeningReview charts, caveats, and ticket-splitting proxy. MethodologyCheck formulas, thresholds, and common explanations.
Flag mix Counts by advisory indicator type
Ready This flag-mix chart is based on the currently loaded advisory indicators for the selected state.
Ready What source would improve this? Automated checks that passed Flag mix uses the currently loaded advisory indicators for this state. Vote-share pattern 103
Average down-ballot difference 84
