SOURCE CHECK: all three URLs cited by the prior researcher are real and live, and each returns content matching the quoted language (control test: fabricated crapo.senate.gov URLs I constructed returned HTTP 404, so live returns are meaningful). I also located the promise's own origin — Crapo's Senate energy issues page — which contains the pledge nearly verbatim: he calls INL 'a national treasure' and commits to 'work to ensure the lab is at the forefront of innovation and public-private partnerships for years to come.' REFUTED CLAIM: the prior rationale's strongest leadership evidence — that Crapo 'sponsored the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (enacted 2019)' — is unsubstantiated. I could not verify it (congress.gov, govtrack and legiscan all returned 403), Wikipedia describes S.512 only as introduced by a bipartisan group of eight senators without naming Crapo as sponsor, and — most tellingly — Crapo's OWN energy issue page, which enumerates his energy accomplishments (REPAIR Act, the Idaho Nuclear Tech Hub, the April 2025 permitting bill), does not claim NEIMA sponsorship. A senator's own office would not omit that if true. This claim is dropped. VERIFIED RECORD: (1) Crapo was a COSPONSOR — not lead sponsor — of the ADVANCE Act, which passed the Senate and was enacted in July 2024; his June 20, 2024 release confirms cosponsorship, though that release does not itself mention INL. (2) His July 15, 2024 weekly column expressly ties that nuclear work to INL as a 'world-leading' facility. (3) On July 20, 2026 he JOINED Risch and Simpson in backing the Idaho Advanced Energy Consortium's successful bid for a ~$31 million EDA Tech Hub award for the Intermountain-West Nuclear Energy Corridor (900+ jobs, ~$190M projected regional impact); IAEC leadership includes an INL manager, and a public-private consortium maps directly onto the promise's 'public-private partnerships' language. WHY PARTIAL, NOT CHAMPIONED: once the false NEIMA sponsorship is removed, every verified action is a CO-role — cosponsor of someone else's bill, co-signer on another entity's grant application — not leading or driving an INL-specific effort. His one lead sponsorship (REPAIR Act) is general energy permitting, not INL innovation. He sits on neither the Energy nor Appropriations committees that drive INL funding. That is more than a single supporting vote and it produced real landed results (an enacted law and a $31M award benefiting an INL-anchored consortium), which places it well above ATTEMPTED — but it does not meet CHAMPIONED's bar of actively LEADING or DRIVING the effort. NEUTRALITY TEST: a Democrat with an identical record — cosponsoring an enacted sector bill, co-signing a delegation support letter that landed a federal grant, and writing supportive columns — would be rated PARTIAL, not CHAMPIONED, under this same standard; conversely the record is plainly affirmative and successful, so downgrading below PARTIAL would be unfairly harsh. The pledge is also open-ended and continuing ('remains at the forefront'), so it cannot be closed out as FULL. Confidence held at 0.7 rather than higher because congress.gov and other bill-tracking sites were unreachable and the web-search budget was exhausted, leaving open the possibility of additional INL-specific leadership I could not enumerate.