Independent re-check confirms the prior FULL rating and finds no partisan leniency. This is a 'continue opposing' maintenance promise, and the evidence of continued opposition is affirmative and consistent, not merely passive. (1) At promise time (2020) Sullivan was on record opposing Medicare for All: Alaska's News Source (Oct 2020) states verbatim, 'Sullivan opposes Medicare for all and has tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act on several occasions since being elected in 2014' (quote verified by direct fetch). His campaign framed the concept as a 'radical government takeover of healthcare.' (2) Since 2020 he never sponsored or co-sponsored any Medicare for All Act. Congress.gov / Sen. Sanders' own press release for S.1655 (118th Congress) confirm it is the single-payer 'Medicare for All Act,' introduced by Sanders with 14 cosponsors who are ALL Democrats (Baldwin, Blumenthal, Booker, Gillibrand, Heinrich, Hirono, Lujan, Markey, etc.); Sullivan (R-AK) is absent from that and every other M4A cosponsor list (S.4204 117th, S.1506 119th). (3) He continued voting against expanded government-run coverage (2017 ACA-repeal votes, 2025 reconciliation Medicaid reductions). No single-payer bill reached a Senate floor vote, so there is no direct roll-call against one, which is why confidence is high but not maximal. The mirror test is symmetric: a Democrat who promised to 'continue supporting M4A' and co-sponsored the Sanders bill each Congress would likewise earn FULL, so labeling Sullivan's sustained, documented opposition FULL is even-handed. CHAMPIONED is not warranted (he did not lead or sponsor anti-single-payer legislation), and NO_OPPORTUNITY understates his affirmative on-record opposition to actively-introduced proposals. Note: the prior rating's Wikipedia source only supports ACA opposition (tangential to M4A); it is replaced here with M4A-specific primary evidence, but the outcome and confidence are unchanged.