FirstAlerts

Pho Sriracha in Seattle Recorded 60 Violation Points in Health Inspection

Pho Sriracha in Seattle recorded 60 violation points during an August 12, 2026, King County health inspection.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 19, 2026, 10:21 a.m. ET
, located at in , recorded 60 violation points during a public health inspection on August 12, 2026, where an inspection with no violations scores zero. The risk category 3 establishment received an inspection result of . The official record shows no later inspection of this establishment. It may have been re-inspected since without the record being updated. According to the inspection record, the observed violations were: - 0100 - PIC present, demonstrates knowledge and performs duties to maintain AMC; certified manager on staff unless exempt - 0500 - Proper barriers used to prevent bare hand contact with ready-to-eat foods - 1400 - Raw meats below and away from ready-to-eat food; species separated - 2120 - Proper cold holding temperatures; between 42 to 45 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (6 to 7 degrees Celsius (C)) - 2300 - Proper consumer advisory posted for raw or undercooked foods - 3100 - Food properly labeled; proper date marking - 3400 - Wiping cloths properly used, stored; sanitizer concentration - 4000 - Food and nonfood surfaces properly used and constructed; cleanable

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 219 Aug 2026, 14:21current

    Updated headline to focus on what happened rather than raw result code, and included official source URL.

  2. Version 119 Aug 2026, 14:19

    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.