Independently re-verified all three cited sources by direct fetch; all are real, live, and support the outcome. Nebraska Legislature's LB1300 page confirms the bill was introduced by Sen. Bostar 'At the request of the Governor', passed Final Reading with Emergency Clause 46-0-3 on April 11, 2024, and was 'Approved by Governor on April 16, 2024'. LB1300 adopted the Foreign Adversary Contracting Prohibition Act. Neb. Rev. Stat. 73-903 (Laws 2024, LB1300, sec. 9) defines 'foreign adversary' by reference to 15 C.F.R. 791.4 (the federal list that includes China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Cuba and the Maduro regime) and defines 'scrutinized company' to cover companies organized in or principally located in a foreign adversary, entities owned/operated by a foreign adversary government, and resellers of such technology. Neb. Rev. Stat. 73-904, verified verbatim, provides: 'A scrutinized company shall not bid on, submit a proposal for, or enter into, directly or indirectly through a third party, any contract or contract renewal with any public entity for any technology-related product or service.' 73-903(6) defines that term as 'a product or service used for information systems, surveillance, light detection and ranging, or communications' (excluding unmanned aerial systems), and 73-905 adds a mandatory bidder certification that the company is not a scrutinized company, will not subcontract to one, and is not reselling one's products. The Governor's own office (Sept. 11, 2024 press release, verified live) describes the law as imposing 'a prohibition on companies from certain identified countries from bidding on state and local procurement contracts.' The promise was therefore converted into enacted, enforceable law within the same year, on a bill the Governor himself requested - FULL, not merely CHAMPIONED, because it was actually enacted. Applying the same standard to any party: a governor whose own requested bill passes 46-0 and is signed, with statutory text matching the promise, earns FULL. Minor scope caveats keep confidence at 0.9 rather than higher: the statutory hook is 'technology-related product or service' (information systems, surveillance, LiDAR, communications) rather than a broad stand-alone 'infrastructure' category, and unmanned aerial systems are expressly carved out of the definition. I did NOT confirm the prior rating's claims of void contracts and civil penalties up to $250,000 - 73-905 and 73-906 as fetched contain no such language - so that detail is dropped from the rationale; it is not load-bearing for the outcome.