The news story accurately reports on the withdrawal of the RSF from Khartoum and the ongoing conflict with the Sudanese army. The claim that Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, confirmed the RSF's tactical retreat is supported by his audio message on Telegram. Furthermore, the story correctly states that the Sudanese army has consolidated gains in Khartoum and Omdurman. However, the narrative could benefit from more precise details about the extent of RSF's control in Omdurman and the specific military strategies employed by both sides. Additionally, while the story mentions the humanitarian crisis, it lacks specific data or sources to verify the figures presented, such as the number of displaced people and the death toll.

The article primarily focuses on the perspectives of the RSF and the Sudanese army, providing direct quotes from leaders of both factions. This approach offers a balanced view of their respective positions. However, the article could improve by including more voices, such as those of civilians affected by the conflict or international observers, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation. The absence of these perspectives might lead to an incomplete picture of the conflict's broader impact.

The article is well-structured and uses clear, concise language to convey the developments in Sudan. The narrative logically progresses from the RSF's withdrawal to the army's consolidation of control, making it easy for readers to follow the unfolding events. The use of direct quotes from key figures adds to the clarity by providing firsthand accounts of the situation. However, the inclusion of more detailed background information could enhance reader understanding.

The story relies on statements from key figures in the conflict, such as Hemedti and Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, which are credible sources for their respective positions. However, the article does not cite independent sources or third-party verification for the claims made by these leaders. Including expert analysis or reports from international organizations could enhance the credibility and depth of the reporting.

The article clearly attributes the statements to the respective leaders of the RSF and the Sudanese army, providing transparency about the sources of information. However, it lacks transparency in terms of methodology and does not explain how the information was gathered or verified. There is also no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or biases that could affect the reporting.