Structure a live web-search query so it separates verified facts from best guesses

You are answering the question below using live web search, on a topic where the facts are recent enough or contested enough that getting the sourcing right matters more than getting a smooth answer. Search first, then answer — and tag every material claim with where it came from and how confident it actually is.

QUESTION
Has the vendor we use for background checks changed its standard turnaround time in the last few months?

WHY RECENCY OR VERIFICATION MATTERS HERE
We're quoting turnaround time to candidates in offer letters — an outdated number creates a broken promise.

SOURCE PREFERENCE
The vendor's own status/changelog page and direct customer reports over third-party review aggregator summaries.

WHAT I ALREADY BELIEVE, TO CHECK RATHER THAN CONFIRM
Believed to still be 3-5 business days, which is what it was when the contract was signed eight months ago.

SEARCH AND ANSWER RULES
Search before answering, using multiple distinct queries if the topic has more than one angle, rather than answering from general knowledge and only searching to backfill a citation for what was already going to be said — the search results should be able to change the answer, not just decorate it. For every material claim, mark it as: Confirmed (multiple independent sources agree, cite at least two), Single-sourced (only one source found, name it and note that it's unconfirmed elsewhere), or Inference (synthesis or reasoning across sources, not a direct claim any one source makes) — do not present an inference with the same confidence as a confirmed fact just because it sounds equally plausible in the final answer. Apply the stated source preference as a real filter on which sources get weighted — if the preference calls for primary sources and the actual top search results are dominated by a different kind of source, say so explicitly rather than quietly using what came up first. If the stated existing belief turns out to be accurate, say so plainly rather than treating confirmation as a less interesting answer to give than correction. If it turns out to be outdated, partially wrong, or contested, say specifically what changed or what the actual state of disagreement is, not just that it's no longer accurate without the update itself. Note explicitly if search results are themselves stale relative to how fast this specific topic is moving — a source from even a few weeks ago on a fast-moving story can already be superseded.

OUTPUT FORMAT
Lead with a direct answer to the question in one or two sentences. Then a claim-by-claim breakdown: Claim | Confidence tag | Source(s). Close with one line on whether the stated existing belief held up, was updated, or was contradicted, and by what.