ADVERSARIAL RE-CHECK: All four sources cited by the prior researcher were independently fetched and are REAL, live, and accurately quoted - no invented, broken, or misquoted sources. The Fox News filing story (Dec. 12, 2025) carries the pledge verbatim; both husted.senate.gov releases (Jan. 6 and Jan. 30, 2026) exist with the exact quotes and figures claimed; the WOSU piece (Dec. 31, 2025) confirms the ACA counterevidence. The prior rating's evidence stopped at Jan. 30, 2026, leaving a ~6-month gap, so I extended the record to the present (July 21, 2026) from the senator's own press office: he commemorated one year of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act (July 1, 2026 - 'this law helps you keep more of what you earn'), LED the Ratepayer Protection Act (July 20, 2026 - shielding 'working families and small businesses' from data-center energy costs), and secured funding for a northeast Ohio manufacturing hub supporting up to 20,000 jobs (July 14, 2026). That is a sustained, primary-sourced, seven-month record of exactly the promised focus, including bills he introduced rather than merely voted for. I explicitly tested and REJECTED two alternatives. NO_OPPORTUNITY is wrong: the outcome definition requires 'no genuine opportunity to act yet,' but Husted plainly had abundant opportunity and repeatedly used it. FULL is wrong: the pledge's own horizon is 'my next term,' which cannot begin before the Nov. 3, 2026 special election (Husted vs. Sherrod Brown for the balance of JD Vance's seat), so the operative window is still open and untested. I also weighed CHAMPIONED (+0.75) and rejected it: the pledge is a diffuse posture ('my focus won't change'), not one identifiable effort that leading can be measured against, and the affordability record is genuinely mixed. NONPARTISAN CALIBRATION: the ACA counterevidence reaches me through an opponent's attack line ('Brown has blasted Husted over his nine votes'), so I weighted it as reported fact, not framing - the underlying record (nine votes against restoring enhanced premium tax credits while ~513,000 Ohioans, 88% of Ohio marketplace enrollees, relied on them) is confirmed by public media, and Husted himself said he wants 'some kind of extension' with conditions. Applying the mirror test, I did not treat a Republican preferring a differently-structured extension as evidence of abandoning working families, just as I would not score a Democrat MISALIGNED for voting against a GOP tax bill marketed as pro-family. That keeps the counterweight as a genuine mixed element rather than a partisan penalty. PARTIAL ('kept some but not all') is the correct fit: the working-families focus has demonstrably and verifiably continued through the campaign period, while the explicit next-term commitment remains untested and the affordability record is mixed. The prior researcher reached the right label on thinner evidence; confidence raised 0.6 -> 0.7 on corroboration, not correction.