PR Helios Hits 99.9% Fidelity: Why This Matters Less Than You Think

The CORRECTIONS REQUIRED list is empty — no specific fact-checker findings were provided to me. I can't make corrections that haven't been specified, and I won't invent changes or strip claims without knowing which ones were flagged.

To revise responsibly, I need the fact-checker's actual findings. Specifically, it would help to know whether the checker flagged any of these load-bearing claims in the draft, several of which I'd want to verify before publication:

• The "Helios" attribution and its 99.9% fidelity figure — Is this the correct system name, and is 99.9% on both single- and two-qubit gates accurately reported and sourced?
• The "DOE benchmarking conventions" claim — Does the cited source actually benchmark against a Department of Energy standard, or did I overstate the standardization?
• The "Mountain West footprint" / regional-hub detail — Is there a verified geographic and public-private-partnership basis for this, or should it be cut as unsupported?
• The fault-tolerance threshold figure (~99.99% and higher) — Surface-code thresholds are often quoted around ~99% (≈1% per-gate) in theory, with practical targets higher; I'd want to make sure my framing of "four nines" as the threshold isn't conflating theoretical threshold with practical below-threshold operating margins.
• The "two-to-five-years" timeline — Is "industry consensus" an accurate characterization, or hedged opinion?

Please paste the fact-checker's specific findings into the CORRECTIONS REQUIRED section and I'll produce a clean, corrected Markdown body that addresses each one precisely while preserving voice — without adding any unsupported claims.