The article provides a detailed account of the increase in HIV prevalence in Tigray post-conflict, citing a rise from 1.4% to 3%, and further details the prevalence among displaced people and sexual violence survivors. These figures align with other reports and studies, supporting the article's accuracy. The description of the conflict's impact on health services is consistent with known facts about the destruction of healthcare facilities and the lack of timely medical support for survivors. However, the article's claim about the Trump administration's aid cuts affecting the situation could be more precise, as it lacks specific figures or direct sources to verify the extent of these cuts. Overall, the article's main claims are well-supported by external sources, but some areas, like the specific impact of U.S. aid cuts, require further verification.

The article primarily presents the perspective of those affected by the conflict in Tigray, highlighting the plight of sexual violence survivors and the challenges faced by the healthcare system. While it provides a compelling narrative of the humanitarian crisis, it lacks viewpoints from the Ethiopian government, Eritrean authorities, or international bodies involved in aid distribution. This omission can lead to a perception of bias, as the article does not explore potential counterarguments or explanations from those responsible for the aid cuts or the conflict itself. Including these perspectives would offer a more balanced view of the complexities surrounding the situation.

The article is well-structured, with a clear narrative that guides the reader through the complexities of the health crisis in Tigray. The language is straightforward and accessible, making it easy for a general audience to comprehend the severity of the situation. Key points are presented logically, with sufficient background information to understand the context of the conflict and its aftermath. However, the article could improve clarity by providing more detailed explanations of technical terms, such as 'antiretroviral drugs' and 'prophylaxis,' for readers unfamiliar with medical jargon.

The article relies on credible sources such as studies published in BMJ Global Health and statements from local health authorities, which enhance its reliability. The inclusion of direct quotes from health officials and affected individuals adds authenticity to the narrative. However, the article could benefit from a broader range of sources, including international organizations or independent experts, to corroborate claims about the impact of U.S. aid cuts and the overall health crisis in Tigray. The lack of direct attribution for some claims, such as the specific effects of aid cuts, slightly diminishes the source quality.

The article is transparent about its sources, mentioning studies and statements from health officials. It also discloses that the Associated Press receives financial support from the Gates Foundation for global health coverage, which is a commendable practice in maintaining transparency. However, the methodology behind some claims, particularly those related to the impact of aid cuts, is not fully explained. Providing more context on how these figures were obtained and the potential biases in reporting would enhance transparency.