Independently re-verified. The decisive primary source is the GPO/govinfo official text of S. 2150 as introduced (119th Congress, June 24, 2025): sponsor 'Ms. Baldwin', with 'Ms. Alsobrooks' named in the as-introduced cosponsor header, which establishes she was an ORIGINAL cosponsor on the day of introduction, not a late add-on. Three separate .senate.gov press releases (Baldwin, Blumenthal, Markey), all dated June 24, 2025, were fetched live and each independently names 'Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD)' among the sponsors. The prior rating's fourth citation (congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2150/text) returned HTTP 403 to automated fetching — congress.gov bot-blocks scrapers — so it could not be re-verified in this session; it is not invented (govinfo independently confirms S. 2150 = Women's Health Protection Act of 2025) but it has been replaced with the govinfo record that was actually verified. TIMING CHECK (the adversarial crux): the promise specified 'on her first day in office.' Alsobrooks entered the Senate at the start of the 119th Congress (Jan 3, 2025); the Baldwin release expressly describes June 24, 2025 as a REINTRODUCTION of the WHPA, confirming no Senate WHPA existed in the 119th Congress before that date. Literal first-day compliance was therefore physically impossible — there was no bill on the docket to attach her name to — and she acted at the first genuine opportunity, in the strongest available form (original cosponsor at introduction). MIRROR TEST: a Republican who promised 'on day one I will cosponsor the Life at Conception Act,' where no such bill was pending until month six, and who then signed on as an original cosponsor the moment it was introduced, would equally be rated FULL; deducting for an unmeetable timing clause would be harshness dressed as rigor, not a neutral standard. OUTCOME CHECK: CHAMPIONED is wrong and would also be a lower score — she did not lead the effort (Baldwin, Blumenthal and Murray led; she was one of ~45 caucus cosponsors) — but the promise was to co-sponsor, not to lead or to pass. PARTIAL is wrong because the entire substantive deliverable was completed; only an impossible timing modifier went unmet. The bill has not been enacted, but the promised act was cosponsorship, not passage. FULL stands. Confidence nudged from 0.85 to 0.88 because the GPO as-introduced text is stronger evidence than the press releases the prior rating relied on.