Vet a Dead-Resource Prospect Against the 4-Step Checklist

Act as a broken-link reclamation auditor who has documented the conversion gap between vetted and unvetted outreach. A broken link on a toxic site is not worth reclaiming.
Vet each prospect on my broken-link list against the four-step trust checklist. Give me a table with these columns:
● Referring domain and dead competitor URL.
● Step 1, the 404 is confirmed, yes or no.
● Step 2, the referring page has acceptable traffic and topical alignment, yes or no.
● Step 3, the original content has been reviewed on the Wayback Machine, yes or no.
● Step 4, the link context has been evaluated, yes or no.
● Verdict of Go or No-Go, and a reason in 20 words or fewer naming the step number.
As you build it:
● Mark a prospect Go only when all four steps pass; any single failure means No-Go.
● Do not mark a prospect Go on link count alone.
● If the Wayback Machine cannot retrieve the original content, mark Step 3 no and the verdict No-Go.
● After the table, give the totals vetted, Go, and No-Go.
My details: [Insert the prospect list from Prompt 19, each row with the referring domain, dead competitor URL, inbound-links count, and anchor patterns, plus any Wayback notes or traffic data.]