Outcome upheld, sources and confidence corrected. Independent re-check: I re-fetched every source the prior researcher cited. Three of four returned live and support the rating verbatim -- New Jersey Globe (Kim ad script: 'I've never accepted a dime of corporate PAC money'), andykim.com ('Andy has never accepted a dime of corporate PAC money...'), and Integrity Index ('Corporate PACs: $0', with 'No corporate PAC money' listed among his pledges). The fourth (OpenFEC API with the shared DEMO_KEY) is real but was HTTP 429 rate-limited during this check; I substituted the FEC's own public candidate page for S4NJ00466, which returned the IDENTICAL figures the prior researcher reported: 2024 cycle receipts $12,441,003.62, individual contributions $11,094,385.53, other-committee contributions $725,533.82, party-committee contributions $0.00. So the underlying FEC data is confirmed, not fabricated. I also pulled the current cycle independently: 2025-01-01 through 2026-06-30 shows receipts $1,659,590.26, individuals $1,376,919.78, other committees $64,005.01 -- i.e. the no-corporate-PAC posture continues in office, and Integrity Index's $0 corporate-PAC figure pairs with a total-raised number ($1,659,590) that exactly matches this current-cycle FEC total. Adversarial corrections applied: (1) The prior rationale asserted that End Citizens United 'endorsed and advertised for him.' I could not substantiate that on ECU's site during this check, so I have removed it from the evidentiary basis; it is not needed for the outcome. (2) The prior rationale characterized Integrity Index as a 'nonpartisan congressional integrity tracker.' Its own page attributes the data to Political Integrity PAC, a reform-advocacy entity, so I treat it as a REPUTABLE_SECONDARY tracker rather than a neutral referee. (3) Because the FEC API was rate-limited, I could NOT independently re-itemize the 2024-cycle committee receipts, so I can neither confirm nor refute the prior researcher's flagged edge cases ($4,500 Duane Morris Government Committee, FEC org type 'Corporation'; $10,000 American Crystal Sugar Company PAC, FEC type 'Cooperative'). Even taken at face value these total ~0.12% of receipts and are exactly the law-firm / agricultural-cooperative categories that sit outside the standard corporate-connected-PAC pledge definition, so they do not move the label off 'essentially 100%.' (4) A residual unchecked risk I am flagging honestly: I did not verify whether any Kim-affiliated leadership PAC accepts corporate PAC money, which a strict reading of 'refuse ALL money from corporate PACs' would cover. Items (3) and (4) are why I trim confidence from 0.80 to 0.75. Cross-party fairness test: a Republican with this same record -- an explicit public pledge, $0 party-committee money, ~89% individual funding in the election cycle, an outside tracker reporting $0 corporate PAC, and no contrary reporting -- would draw FULL from me at the same confidence. No partisan leniency detected; the prior rating was appropriately caveated rather than inflated.