I read your link, since I had not come across it before.
Bottom line... "These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven." So, that is the standard, someone documents something that may be true or false and the burden of proof is to disprove it.
"However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive."
Another quote, "But much of the reporting simply remains uncorroborated, at least by the yardstick we are using." This is what BVZ is posting about, Steele would not corroborate, FBI wanted to pay him to do so. So why are you saying BVZ is wrong about the issue. It looks like you are the one who lacks objectivity.