Adversarial re-check confirms PARTIAL. Source audit: the prior rating's PolitiFact and FactCheck.org citations are REAL, live, and quoted accurately (PolitiFact promise #1645 is still 'In the Works' as of its 2026-02-19 update; FactCheck.org 2025-10-02 by Eugene Kiely). The third citation (medicareadvocacy.org) returns HTTP 403 and could not be independently verified, so it was replaced with three fetchable sources (Center for American Progress implementation timeline, KFF Medicare tracker, Advisory Board sequestration explainer) plus a 2026 budget check (Newsweek, 2026-04-03). Evidence for the kept side: no direct reduction in Social Security or Medicare benefit amounts, COLAs, or eligibility ages has been enacted or proposed; the FY2027 budget released April 2026 'does not propose any reductions to Social Security benefits, eligibility rules, or cost-of-living adjustments' and 'does not propose cutting Medicare benefits or eligibility'; and the roughly $500B statutory-PAYGO Medicare sequester that CBO said P.L. 119-21 would trigger over 2026-2034 was averted when H.R. 5371 cleared the PAYGO scorecard on 2025-11-12. Evidence against 'not one penny': the reconciliation law Trump signed and championed does reduce Medicare - it eliminates Medicare eligibility for refugees, asylees, and humanitarian parolees (notices due 2026-07-04, coverage ends 2027-01-04), including people who paid Medicare payroll taxes for decades, and it imposed a moratorium (effective 2025-07-04) on the CMS Medicare Savings Programs eligibility/enrollment rule that would have helped roughly 1.3 million low-income, mostly citizen beneficiaries pay premiums and cost-sharing. Separately, SSA lost about 7,500 staff (~13%) from Jan 2025 to Jan 2026 and is targeting a 50% cut in field-office visits, degrading service to beneficiaries without cutting benefit checks. Cross-party consistency test: an absolute 'not one penny' pledge followed by enacted statutory reductions in program eligibility and low-income cost-sharing assistance would not be scored 'kept 100%' for a politician of either party, and conversely the absence of any benefit-rate cut and the reversal of the PAYGO sequester rule out MISALIGNED or HOSTILE. FULL is too generous (real, enacted Medicare reductions exist); IGNORED/ABSTAINED/NO_OPPORTUNITY are inapplicable (he legislated extensively in this space). PARTIAL (+0.5) is the correct label. Confidence is moderate rather than high because the largest disputed item (the PAYGO sequester) was neutralized only by a scorecard wipe that Congress could decline to repeat in future years.