Adversarial re-check: all three sources cited by the prior researcher are REAL, live, and accurately quoted (Sullivan press release, ADF&G April 1 2025 release, KCAW July 22 2025). I added three independent confirmations not in the original rating. Outcome verified on two axes. (1) The promised result occurred: the Ninth Circuit ruled Aug. 16, 2024 (Wild Fish Conservancy v. State of Alaska, No. 23-35322) that 'shutting down the fishery is the wrong prescription for the whales' survival,' lifting the 2023 district-court closure order; the Southeast summer king troll fishery then ran in 2024 (opened July 1, ~66,700-chinook target, closed July 8), in 2025 (ADF&G set a 92,730-fish troll allocation; ~460 trollers landed ~44,000 Chinook in the four-day July opener plus August/September limited-harvest openings), and continues in 2026. So whichever summer 'the following summer' denotes, trollers fished it. (2) Sullivan was an active participant, not a bystander: KCAW independently reported the delegation's district-court amicus brief filed March 6, 2023 with Sullivan on record ('This lawsuit is ridiculous'), and two further amicus briefs at the Ninth Circuit (June 2023 stay request; October 2023 merits). CORRECTION to the prior rationale's wording: the Ninth Circuit only PARTIALLY reversed — it overturned the vacatur/closure remedy but left the underlying NEPA findings intact and required NMFS to produce a revised biological opinion by Dec. 1, 2024, so the litigation risk was reduced rather than extinguished. That nuance does not change the label, because the promise's operative content (trollers able to fish the king-salmon troll fishery the following summer) was achieved. FAIRNESS TEST: the decisive actor was the appellate court, not Sullivan, and amicus briefs are non-binding advocacy — but this is an outcome-shaped promise ('ensure X are able to fish'), the outcome landed, and the politician did everything within his power short of legislation. A Democrat with an identical record (e.g. Rep. Peltola, who joined the same briefs) would earn the same FULL under this standard, so no partisan leniency is being applied. Confidence held at 0.85; residual uncertainty is the exact provenance/wording of the original 2024 statement and the attribution question, not the factual record.