What was the total cost of the White House basketball court renovation during Obama's presidency?

1. Why the supplied documents fail to answer the cost question

All three supplied analyses explicitly state they contain no relevant information about the White House basketball court renovation, describing the texts as programming- or code-related and thus unrelated to historical renovation costs ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The first item is identified as an excerpt about a Java class and a Stack Overflow-style discussion, the second and third are described as process/programming meta discussions; none mention the White House, its facilities, budgets, contractors, or timelines. Because none of the supplied documents include budget figures, procurement records, or even narrative references to a renovation, they cannot be used to extract or corroborate a monetary figure. The absence of relevant content across all three items is uniform and categorical, leaving the original cost claim unsupported by these materials ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. What a reliable answer would require but is missing here

To establish the total cost of a White House facility renovation during any administration requires documentary evidence such as contracting records, White House Office of Management and Administration (OMA) budget reports, General Services Administration (GSA) contractor invoices, congressional appropriations, or contemporaneous press reporting citing official figures. None of those document types appear in the submitted packet; instead, the present materials are technical Q&A excerpts that do not reference government budgets or projects ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Without access to those forms of primary documentation, any numeric claim about the renovation’s cost would be speculative. The supplied materials thus leave an evidentiary void: they demonstrate the absence of pertinent data rather than providing alternate figures or counter-evidence to the original statement.

3. Cross-checking impossible with the provided sources

A fact-check requires cross-referencing multiple independent sources—official records, contemporaneous news accounts, and oversight documents—to confirm a dollar figure for a government renovation. The three items provided cannot be cross-checked because they contain no overlapping content related to the subject; they offer no dates, names, contract numbers, or financial details that could anchor further verification ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The analyses attached to each source explicitly note the irrelevance of the texts to the renovation topic, which means that the materials collectively do not permit even a preliminary triangulation of figures or claims. In effect, the packet is useful only to establish that the provenance of the claim has not been demonstrated by the submitter.

4. What the absence of evidence implies for the original claim

Given the lack of relevant documentation in the supplied sources, the correct factual posture is that the claim about the total cost of the White House basketball court renovation during Obama’s presidency is unverified by this evidence. The materials provided do not support confirmation or refutation; they simply do not address the issue ^{[1] [2] [3]}. In journalistic and fact-checking practice, an absence of supporting sources requires either locating primary records or labeling the claim as lacking substantiation until such records are produced. The present packet does the opposite of corroboration: it documents that the submitter’s links are mismatched and hence insufficient for verification.

5. How to obtain authoritative confirmation (what to request next)

To resolve the question authoritatively, request or consult specific, dated sources: White House OMA expenditure statements, GSA contracting records for White House maintenance during the relevant years, congressional committee reports or oversight documents referencing White House facility work, or contemporary investigative reporting citing named invoices. None of the supplied items meet those criteria; they are programming-focused and thus do not advance the verification task ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Securing one or more of the suggested official records would permit a conclusive calculation of total cost and allow independent cross-checking against press accounts or watchdog analyses. Until such documentation is provided, the cost claim remains unsupported by the materials at hand.