Content Quality: Well-structured News piece (633 words, within the 400-1200 word News range) using the standard Overview / What We Know / What We Don't Know / Analysis format. Writing is clear, neutral, and appropriately hedged where sources conflict. The 'What We Don't Know' section is a strong editorial practice — it surfaces a genuine cross-source discrepancy (inert vs. live round) instead of silently picking a side.
Source Verification: All 5 source snapshots were read in full from disk (gunzip -c on each source-N.html.gz, HTML stripped to plain text) — none required a live WebFetch fallback; all 5 manifest entries had file set and status_code 200. I independently recomputed the sha256 of each decompressed snapshot with `shasum -a 256` and confirmed all 5 match the manifest exactly (source-0: f70f0a49..., source-1: aed15c16..., source-2: 3e018093..., source-3: bf9f157f..., source-4: 04836c23...), confirming snapshot integrity.
- source-0.html.gz (airandspaceforces.com, 'Anduril YFQ-44 Fires Live Air-to-Air Missile in Landmark CCA Test'): Confirms the AIM-120 AMRAAM fired at a 'digital target' over the Mojave Desert; confirms the Air Dominance Combined Test Force / 412th Test Wing; confirms verbatim the Wilsbach quote ('This live-fire test is an important next step...'), the Shushnar quote ('This was more than a simple weapons release test... It demonstrated an end-to-end, beyond-line-of-sight strike against a simulated target'), and the Gen. Dale White quote ('operational validation that Collaborative Combat Aircraft can execute the weapon employment sequence autonomously within pilot-defined parameters, accelerating capability delivery to the warfighter'). All three quotes are attributed by the submission to this exact outlet and appear verbatim here.
- source-1.html.gz (twz.com/The War Zone, 'YFQ-44A Fury Fighter Drone Has Fired Its First AIM-120 AMRAAM Missile'): Confirms 'the first time any U.S. Collaborative Combat Aircraft drone has fired a live air-to-air missile'; confirms the February 2026 announcement of the weapons-integration/captive-carry phase and the released photo of a YFQ-44A carrying an inert AIM-120; confirms YFQ-42A Dark Merlin has not been seen carrying a munition and is slated for its own live-fire test later this year; confirms last month's production orders for both YFQ-44A and YFQ-42A forming a mixed fleet. All claims attributed to The War Zone in the submission are supported here verbatim or in substance.
- source-2.html.gz (newatlas.com, 'US Air Force makes its first wingman drone missile launch'): Confirms the YFQ-44A used Anduril's Lattice software to locate/lock/compute an intercept course, with the only human input being the fire-authorization command — matches the submission's claim about Lattice software and human operator authority attributed to New Atlas.
- source-3.html.gz (defensescoop.com, 'Air Force reaches CCA milestone...'): Confirms the Air Force's goal of fielding at least 150 CCA drones by decade's end, and confirms last month's production contract announcement — matches the submission's DefenseScoop-attributed claims.
- source-4.html.gz (militarytimes.com, 'Air Force completes first-ever CCA live-fire test with Anduril YFQ-44A'): Confirms, in the Air Force spokesperson's own words to Military Times, that the AIM-120 used was described as 'inert' — this is the source of the cross-outlet discrepancy the submission correctly flags in its 'What We Don't Know' section. Also confirms the human-oversight quote used in the submission ('the decision to release any [weapon] remains with a human operator who has command and control of the platform at all times') — the submission's bracketed '[weapon]' is a proper, clearly-marked editorial insertion into an otherwise verbatim quote ('the decision to release any remains with a human operator...'), not a fabrication.
No hallucinated quotes, no misattributed claims, and no orphan source URLs were found — every URL in article.sources appears in body_markdown and vice versa (confirmed by the automated 'body_sources_match' / 'sources_referenced' checks, which I also spot-verified by eye).
Factual Accuracy: Every specific claim, quote, date, and figure in the article traces to its cited source and was independently confirmed against the snapshot text (see source_verification above). No fabrications, no conflation of separate events, no extrapolation beyond what the sources state.
Overall Assessment: APPROVE. This is a clean, well-sourced News submission. All 5 sources were read in full from their gzipped snapshots (not re-fetched), sha256-verified against the manifest, and every claim/quote/figure in the article checks out against them, including one instance of a properly bracketed quote insertion. The article responsibly discloses a genuine cross-source factual conflict (inert vs. live round) rather than silently resolving it. The only automated finding is an allowlist-completeness warning against 3 legitimate, verified defense-press outlets, which is a config gap rather than a content or sourcing-quality defect and does not warrant a corrections record. No duplicate or overlapping prior coverage exists in the archive.