The article's factual accuracy is strong, with most claims supported by external sources. The passage of the law expanding the military's role in Indonesia's government is a central claim, confirmed by multiple sources. The increase in military positions from 10 to 14 civilian institutions and the rise in retirement age for generals are also accurate according to the sources. The article accurately reports on the protests and opposition from human rights groups, aligning with external confirmations. However, the specific number of active-duty officers in civilian roles prior to the law change, while mentioned, could benefit from additional verification. Overall, the story maintains high factual accuracy with minor areas needing further evidence.

The article presents a balanced view by including perspectives from both government officials and critics. It highlights the government's justification for the law as necessary for modern challenges and national security, while also providing substantial coverage of opposition from human rights groups and activists. This dual presentation helps in maintaining balance, though the article leans slightly towards highlighting criticism, which could suggest a minor imbalance. The inclusion of statements from President Prabowo and other officials helps mitigate this by offering their perspective on the necessity of the changes.

The article is well-structured and clearly written, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the legislative changes and their implications. The use of direct quotes and specific examples enhances understanding, and the language is neutral and accessible. However, the article could benefit from a more detailed explanation of the historical context of military involvement in Indonesian politics, which would provide additional clarity for readers unfamiliar with the background.

The article cites a variety of sources, including government officials, human rights activists, and analysts, providing a broad spectrum of viewpoints. However, it lacks direct attribution to specific primary sources or documents, such as the actual text of the legislative amendments. The reliance on statements from activists and analysts, while credible, could be supplemented with more direct evidence or official documents to enhance source quality. The presence of quotes from named individuals, such as Wilson from KontraS and Andreas Harsono from Human Rights Watch, adds credibility.

The article provides a clear narrative of the events and the context surrounding the legislative changes, but it could improve transparency by detailing the methods of information gathering and any potential conflicts of interest. While it discloses the affiliations of quoted individuals, the article does not explain how the information was verified or the sources consulted. Greater transparency in these areas would strengthen the article's credibility and reader trust.