All four sources cited by the prior rater were independently re-fetched and are real, live, and accurately quoted. Senate Roll Call 372 (119th Cong., 1st Sess.) confirms Justice voted Yea on passage of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (50-50, VP tiebreak). Senate Roll Call 411 confirms he voted Yea on passage of H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act (51-48-1), which cut roughly $9 billion. His own press release on OBBBA passage is genuine and, as the prior rater noted, makes no deficit- or debt-reduction claim. Where I depart from the prior rating is the label. MISALIGNED (-0.75) rests on treating OBBBA solely as a $3.0 trillion debt increase, which conflates 'spending' with 'deficits.' The same CRFB analysis the prior rater cited shows the bill's deficit increase came from the revenue side (Ways and Means provisions totaling about $3.75 trillion in tax cuts, including -$2,177B in rate cuts and -$1,308B in standard-deduction expansion), while the bill simultaneously enacted large SPENDING reductions: an Energy and Commerce subtotal of $1,086 billion in deficit reduction, plus $128B in SNAP state matching requirements, $92B in strengthened SNAP work requirements, and $295B from replacing SAVE/income-contingent repayment. Medicaid work requirements alone score $336B. Those are precisely the 'rein in federal spending' and 'target waste, fraud, and abuse' instruments the promise describes, and they were enacted, not merely attempted. The rescissions package is a second enacted spending cut in the promise's direction. Breaking the promise into its three stated components: (1) rein in federal spending - ADVANCED via enacted law (>$1T in mandatory spending reductions plus a $9B rescission); (2) target waste, fraud, and abuse - ADVANCED in part (work requirements and eligibility-integrity provisions), though I could not verify any legislation he personally sponsored on the subject, because congress.gov and govtrack both returned 403 to automated fetches, and I therefore decline to assert the prior rater's claim that none exists; (3) reduce the national debt - FAILED and moved backwards, since he voted for a measure adding roughly $3.0 trillion to debt including interest and raising the debt limit by $5 trillion, and issued no debt-reduction messaging (his current official press-release feed, re-fetched, contains no items on spending cuts, rescissions, DOGE, the deficit, or the debt). Two of three components were genuinely delivered through enacted legislation; one moved decisively the wrong way. That is the textbook definition of PARTIAL ('kept some but not all of it'). Applying the symmetry test: a member of either party who voted for a bill containing over $1 trillion in program spending cuts would not fairly be called MISALIGNED - one notch above HOSTILE - on a spending-restraint promise merely because the same bill also cut taxes. Conversely, PARTIAL rather than CHAMPIONED or FULL is correct because he led nothing, sponsored nothing verifiable, drove no debt-reduction effort, and the headline debt objective got materially worse on his vote. ATTEMPTED is a poorer fit than PARTIAL because both bills actually became law. Confidence is held at 0.55: the underlying roll-call facts are PRIMARY and certain, but the PARTIAL-versus-MISALIGNED boundary on a multi-component fiscal promise is genuinely contestable.