Adversarial re-check: all three originally cited URLs were independently fetched and are REAL, live, and quoted ACCURATELY (April 23, April 29, and June 4, 2026). No source was invented, broken, or misquoted. Verdict is REVISE rather than CONFIRM because the prior rationale materially UNDERSTATED the record: it characterized her conduct as merely 'co-sponsorship, task-force participation, and public statements rather than leading her own voting-rights bill.' A search of her own Senate site surfaced a stronger 'resist' data point the prior rater missed — on March 20, 2026 she personally HELD THE FLOOR against the SAVE America Act, saying 'I stand here and say no to Jim Crow 2.0' and 'This bill is as dangerous as it is unethical. It is a thinly veiled attempt to make it harder for some Americans to participate in our democracy,' calling on colleagues to block it from advancing. A March 21, 2026 newsletter reinforced it ('This is about voter suppression, plain and simple'). The verified record therefore spans five items over four months and satisfies BOTH halves of the promise: 'call out' (floor speech, newsletter, SCOTUS statement) and 'resist' (co-introducing the Absentee MVP Act with 38 colleagues to nullify Trump's vote-by-mail executive order, plus service on the Senate Democrats' Election Protection Task Force). OUTCOME STANDS AT FULL after challenge. FULL is the correct structural fit: this is a pure CONDUCT promise ('call out and resist'), not an outcome promise, and no component of it was left unperformed. CHAMPIONED (+0.75) was considered and rejected — that label is defined for efforts that were led but did NOT fully land, which presupposes an outcome shortfall that does not exist for a conduct promise. PARTIAL and ATTEMPTED were rejected because no promised component was skipped and no 'did not land' framing applies. NO_OPPORTUNITY plainly fails (she had abundant opportunity and took it). NONPARTISAN SYMMETRY TEST APPLIED: a Republican senator promising to 'continue to call out and resist attacks on election integrity' who delivered a floor speech, a newsletter, a co-introduced bill, a task-force seat, and a formal statement within six months would likewise be rated FULL; lead sponsorship or enactment is not required by the promise's own wording, and I would not impose that bar on either party. NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE FOUND — no vote against a voting-rights measure, no abstention, no reversal. STATED LIMITATIONS (which cap confidence at 0.88 rather than higher): all five sources originate from the subject's own Senate office, so there is no third-party corroboration, and roll-call votes could not be independently verified because congress.gov and govtrack.us both returned HTTP 403 and the session's web-search budget was exhausted. The absence of John Lewis VRAA / Freedom to Vote Act press releases on her site is noted but is NOT treated as contrary evidence, since absence of a press release does not establish absence of support.