Adversarial re-check: all four sources in the prior rating were independently fetched, are live, and genuinely say what was claimed; none were invented or misquoted. This is a compound promise with roughly six components, and the record splits. DELIVERED: (1) Military funding -- the enacted FY2026 national defense topline reached roughly $1.0 trillion (about $839-893B in appropriations plus reconciliation funds), and the FY2027 request of $1.5 trillion is described by the Department of War itself as the largest in history and a 42 percent increase; (2) Alliance burden-sharing -- verified against NATO's own Hague Summit Declaration of June 25, 2025 (not just the White House's self-interested fact sheet), in which allies committed to 'invest 5% of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035'; (3) Counterterrorism tempo -- U.S. strikes in Somalia hit record levels (144 strikes in the first year, 74-plus already in 2026 per Long War Journal), far exceeding predecessors. NOT DELIVERED: (4) The Iron Dome shield, the single most concrete and checkable deliverable in the promise, does not exist. The Jan 27, 2025 executive order is real and roughly $25B was appropriated via the July 2025 reconciliation law, but National Defense Magazine (Apr 10, 2026) documents that 13 months in the program was 'spinning its wheels,' funds largely unspent, with Todd Harrison of AEI noting the $175B cost / 2029 timeline / performance targets cannot all be met together. MIXED-TO-COUNTER: (5) Countering China -- CSIS (Jan 26, 2026) confirms the new National Defense Strategy abandons 'strategic competitor' framing, calls China merely 'the second most powerful country in the world,' elevates the Western Hemisphere above the Indo-Pacific, and seeks 'a wider range of military-to-military communications with the People's Liberation Army,' though it retains First Island Chain denial. SYMMETRY TEST: I considered upgrading to CHAMPIONED, since Trump personally drove every element (signed the EO, pressed the Hague commitment, ordered the strike campaigns, submitted the record request). I declined because CHAMPIONED is calibrated for leadership on efforts that did not land, whereas here there is real ENACTED delivery on some components alongside a flagship deliverable that has not materialized and one component that moved opposite to the promise's direction. Applying the identical standard to an opposite-party president with this exact record -- record enacted defense funding, a major allied burden-sharing win, escalated counterterrorism strikes, an EO plus $25B for a missile shield that barely moved in 13 months, and a defense strategy softening the framing on the named adversary -- I would also rate PARTIAL. Downgrades (ATTEMPTED, IGNORED, ABSTAINED, MISALIGNED) are all excluded by the substantial enacted action; FULL is excluded because no missile shield exists. PARTIAL is the correct midpoint. Prior rating stands; confidence raised marginally from 0.78 to 0.80 because every cited source survived independent verification and additional non-partisan corroboration (NATO primary text, CRS/appropriations figures, Long War Journal) was located.