Adversarial re-check confirms IGNORED and closes the evidentiary gap the prior rater flagged. (1) All three cited sources were independently fetched and are REAL and accurately quoted — no invented or misquoted source. The campaign page carries the promise essentially verbatim ('pass a Medicare buy-in option and apply ACA subsidies to the plan to ensure all Americans have access regardless of income'), so the promise text is authentic. (2) The vehicle matching the promise almost exactly is the Choose Medicare Act (S. 2032, 119th Cong.), which creates a 'Medicare part E' public plan sold on the ACA marketplace with ACA subsidies attached. GovInfo's primary bill-status record confirms Merkley introduced it June 11, 2025 with exactly 11 Democratic cosponsors (Murphy, Baldwin, Blumenthal, Booker, Duckworth, Reed, Schatz, Gillibrand, Smith, Durbin, Schiff). Alsobrooks is not among them, and cosponsorship remained open to her for roughly 13 months. (3) The prior rating held confidence at 0.7 because a full cosponsorship enumeration was blocked; I completed it. A filtered query of Alsobrooks's cosponsored legislation on congress.gov returns 26 Medicare-matching bills, and none is the Choose Medicare Act, Medicare-X Choice Act, State Public Option Act, or Medicare at 50 Act. Her Senate site's own search for 'public option' likewise returns no release, statement, or bill on a buy-in. (4) Opportunity plainly existed and she was demonstrably present for it — she introduced her own Medicare and Medicaid Dental, Vision, and Hearing Benefit Act on June 12, 2025, one day after S. 2032, as part of the same Senate Democratic health package whose bill list included Schatz's State Public Option Act. She engaged energetically on adjacent coverage bills (S. 3368 Restoring Patient Protections and Affordability Act, S.J.Res. 84 and S.J.Res. 197 disapproving CMS ACA rules) but never on a buy-in or public option. Cosponsoring general ACA-affordability bills is not partial delivery of a Medicare buy-in with subsidies applied to that plan, so PARTIAL is unwarranted; no buy-in vote ever occurred, so ATTEMPTED is unwarranted; opportunity clearly existed, so NO_OPPORTUNITY is wrong; and there is no evidence of position-avoidance or opposition, so ABSTAINED/MISALIGNED/HOSTILE are wrong. Symmetry check: a legislator of either party who promised to 'work to pass' a measure, whose flagship bill was introduced in their own chamber by a same-party colleague during a package rollout they personally participated in, and who never cosponsored, spoke on, or advanced it, would draw IGNORED under the same standard — this is a declined opportunity, not a blocked one. Confidence raised modestly from 0.70 to 0.75 because the enumeration is now complete, but held below 0.8 because this remains absence-of-action evidence, part of the listing was read through a text-extraction proxy, and her term runs through 2030 so the promise retains time to be acted on.