From: Greater Boston
I've been searching flight tracking software for logs to bolster my assertion. Looks like you have to have a paid service to find anything other than current. I'm all ears if there's another way to find this?
Your dedication to hunting down data is noted and appreciated! Checking the logs are a great idea, though (as you've discovered) good trackers are usually locked behind a paywall -- and military aircraft usually don't like to be tracked when they're pushing their limits, anyway.
That said, it's been noted by other commenters -- and rightfully so! -- that it's not enough to take a manufacturer (or a test pilot, for that matter) at their word. With things like this, where hairs are being split over a couple thousand feet of altitude, I look to see if the numbers are being repeated anywhere else.
A cursory few minutes of searching revealed the 60,000-65,000ft number repeated in numerous sources, even when I ignored those that were simply regurgitating the test pilot's words.
For example, this article in Aviation Week, which reports that "Pentagon officials have put [the flight ceiling] at 65,000 ft", and GlobalSecurity (which can be of questionable reliability but is right more often than not) which puts the ceiling for "tactical maneuvers" at 60,000 ft; these coupled with the official Air Force website and numerous articles (such as, for example, this one from Popular Mechanics) which both state that the F-22 is capable of operating well above 50,000 ft, make me confident enough to bump up the max altitude to 60,000 ft.
You'll note I said 60,000, not 65,000: I do see that 65,000 number, but far less frequently, and while I don't doubt that the F-22 can get up there I'm not nearly as confident in its ability to maneuver there. (Few of the sources that cite the 65,000 ft number claim it can: they just say that's its ceiling.)
In the end, with active-duty, top-of-the-line aircraft like the F-22 for which many details remain classified, all we can do is make informed guesses based on the information available to us. There's enough info out there claiming 60-65,000 ft that I feel confident using that lower number. Those sources I listed, plus many more which I omitted for readability, are all respected defense/defense adjacent institutions with reputations to uphold and a strong incentive not to get things wrong. Journalists are hardly infallible, but if enough reporters have dug up (and editors have greenlit) the same number, that usually means something.
Hopefully this helps shine some light on how I approach DB adjustments. Rest assured to those concerned, we're not just regurgitating manufacturer numbers...or taking random forum commenters at face value, much as I love you guys.