You are of course taking Pollard's word for it that those were the only documents that he handed over. A traitor is not someone who I would generally trust.
That is true, in that statement I was assuming that only that information was handed over. That is the thrust of the article, and the thing that needs to be known before any change to Pollard's sentence should be made. It's clear that at least some of the information upon which the sentence was based is now known to be incorrect, how much of the rest was also incorrect is unknown, and unknowable unless it is declassified since we don't even know what it all was. Was it just the agents stuff, was it the "attack plan" stuff? What else? Is there really information that shows he turned over anything besides that on the Soviets and Arabs? We just don't know. Even if everything in this article is correct, he still violated security and should be punished, but how much is the question. It's clearly not Treason, as some have stated, if the information was not provided to "enemies of the United States", as that is the Constitutional definition of treason.