FirstAlerts

Meekong Bar, Seattle: Recorded 80 Violation Points

Public health files show Meekong Bar in Seattle received 80 violation points during an August 12, 2026 inspection.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 19, 2026, 12:38 p.m. ET
, located at in , recorded 80 violation points during a public health inspection on August 12, 2026, where an inspection with no violations scores zero. public health files show no later inspection of this establishment, though it may have been re-inspected since without the public database being updated. The situation remains open and developing. According to the inspection report, the establishment received an score of in risk category 3. The inspector recorded the following observations: * Warewashing facilities properly installed, maintained, used; sanitizer concentration; test strips available and used * Food and nonfood surfaces properly used and constructed; cleanable * Insects, rodents, animals not present; entrance controlled * No room temperature storage; proper use of time as a control, procedures available * Proper cold holding temperatures; greater than 45 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (7 degrees Celsius (C)) * Wiping cloths properly used, stored; sanitizer concentration

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 16:38current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.